O R D E R

Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against him.

2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.472 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Mavelikara arising out of Crime No.2661 of 2019 of Mavelikara Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) and (ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused, who is an advocate by profession, due to an enimity with the de facto complainant for having complained against the unauthorised construction of the accused, abused the de facto complainant on 03.12.2019 within the court premises, and threatened to file cases against him including those under the POCSO Act, and also use quotation gangs, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the de facto complainant is in the habit of filing complaints against Advocates, who appeared against him apart from Government Pleaders and even Judges, who have handled his cases or passed judgments in connection with his cases. Reference was invited to Annexure-H where a complaint was filed against the Government Pleader and a learned Judge of this Court. It is further submitted that the entire allegations are totally malafide, and are intended to wreak vengeance against the petitioner. No evidence other than the de facto complainant’s unilateral statement has been produced by the investigating ofÏcer to justify the allegations. The learned counsel also argued that, as a practicing advocate, continuance of the crime is an ignominy for him and would affect him prejudicially in his profession and therefore, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ought to be invoked. The learned counsel further submitted that even if the entire allegations in the final report are assumed to be correct, still, the offences alleged are not made out.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations are factual in nature which requires appreciation of evidence, and therefore, Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked.

7. Even though notice to the 2nd respondent was served on him, there is no appearance.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner is a practicing Advocate, as stated in the final report itself. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner had abused the de facto complainant. However, the specific words allegedly used by the petitioner have not been mentioned in the final report or even in the FIR. It is settled preposition of law that, in the absence of the specific words of abuse used by the accused the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC cannot be attracted. Reference to the decision of this Court in Latheef v. State of Kerala (2014 (2) KLT 987) is appropriate. Viewed from the above perspective, the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC has not been made out from the final report.

9. As far as the Section 506(i) of IPC is concerned, the Supreme Court has held in Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karanataka and Another (2015 (7) SCC 423) that, mere expression of any words without intention to cause alarm would not be sufÏcient to attract the offence under Section 506 of the IPC.

10. A perusal of the final report indicates that the allegations or the expressions allegedly used by the petitioner cannot by itself, cause any alarm sufÏcient to mulct him with the offence of criminal intimidation. The threat contemplated under Section 503 of IPC must be a threat of injury to the body reputation, or property with intent to cause alarm to that person. A reading of the final report does not indicate that the said ingredients are satisfied in the instant case. Therefore, the offences under Section 506(i) and (ii) are not made out.

11. Apart from the above, the Supreme Court has held in State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajanlal & Others (1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 3