IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 6939 OF 2016 CRIME NO.1360/2014 OF ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OS NO.1322 OF 2014 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.122 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THRISSUR PETITIONERS 1 TO 3/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:

1 DR.RINKO C MATHEW AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW , CHOWALOOR HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADY P O, PATTURAIKKAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680022.

2 MRS.BOBY SWAPNA AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.RINKO C MATHEW, CHOWALOOR HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADY P O, PATTURAIKKAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680022.

3 MR.DAVIS AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSY, NELLISEERY HOUSE, VIYOOR DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680010.

BY ADVS.

SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK SRI.P.V.JEEVESH RESPONDENT/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA (CRIME NO 1360/2014 SUB INSPECTOR OFPOLICE, ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

2 SEENA SIMON AGED 49 YEARS, MANGAN HOUSE, MANALOOR, KANJANY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680612.

BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP SMT.O.V.BINDU SMT.V.P.SATHI - R2 SRI.THOMAS C.ANTONY THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

--------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No.6939 of 2016 ---------------------------------

Dated this the 05^th day of August, 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.122/2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, arising from Crime No.1360/2014 of Anthikkad Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections

448, 294(b) and 506(i) r/w 34 of IPC.

2. It is alleged that the petitioners 1 to 3, on

24.02.2014 at 5.00 PM, trespassed into the textile shop run by the husband of the defacto complainant and threatened the defacto complainant who was sitting in the cash counter. Hence, it is submitted that the accused committed the offence. Eventhough, the offences under Section 448, 294(b) and 506(i) are alleged in the final report, the learned Magistrate took cognizance only under Sections 448 and 506(i) of IPC. According to the petitioners even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence under Section 448 and 506(i) IPC are made out. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The offence alleged are under Sections

448 and 506(i) of IPC. As far as Section 506(i) IPC is concerned, the Apex Court considered the ingredients to attract the same in Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another (2015 KHC 4046). The relevant portion of the above said judgment is extracted hereunder:

“13. S.506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in S.503 IPC is as under:

"503. Criminal Intimidation.-- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

Explanation.-- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."

14. A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person