To constitute offenses under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, the allegations must meet specific legal definitions regarding obscenity and intent to intimidate, which were not satisfied here.

This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No. 4670/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur. The above case is chargesheeted against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs.294(b), 506(i) IPC and under Sec.119(a) of the Kerala Police Act .

2.The prosecution case is that the accused threatened the defacto complainant that he would throw her out of the job and will kill her. It is further alleged that the accused showed some gestures to the defacto complainant. Annexure-A1 is the final report. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offences alleged are not attracted.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. I also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

4.Annexure-A1 is the final report. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the final report.

5-9-2013 “തതീയതതി കകാലതത്ത് 9.00 മണതികത്ത് പ്രതതി കുനതിശശ്ശേരതി ഗവ.LP സ്കൂളതിനത്ത് മുൻവശശം ശറകാഡതിൽ വചത്ത് ആൺകുടതികളള സ്കൂളതിൽ ശചേർക്കുന്നതതിനത്ത് അനുകൂലമകായതി ജതിലകാ വതിദദകാഭദകാസ ഓഫതീസതിൽ 1-ആശം സകാകതി സശംസകാരതിചതതിളന വതിശരകാധശം വചത്ത് 1-ആശം സകാകതിശയകാടത്ത് പ്രതതി ശജകാലതികളയുളമനശം ജതീവതികകാൻ അനുവദതികതിളലനശം പറഞ്ഞു ഭതീഷണതിളപ്പെടുതതി അസഭദശം വതിളതിചത്ത് പറഞത്ത് ശമകാശമകായതി ആശംഗദശം കകാണതിക്കുകയുശം ളചേയതിരതികയകാൽ പ്രതതി ശമൽ വകുപ്പുകൾ പ്രകകാരമുള്ള കുറശം ളചേയതിരതിക്കുന എന്നത്ത്. ”

5.Based on the above, whether offences under Sec.294(b) and 506(i) IPC are made out is the question to be decided in this case.

6. This Court in Latheef v. State of Kerala [ 2014 (2) KHC 604 ] considered the ingredients of Sec.294(b) IPC . It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment.

“5.Abusive words or humiliating words or defamatory words will not as such amount to obscenity as defined under the law. Of course there is no doubt that the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner are in fact abusive and humiliating. But to make it obscene, punishable under S.294(b) IPC it must satisfy the definition of obscenity. S.294 does not define obscenity. Being a continuation of the subject dealt with under S.292 the definition of obscenity under 292(1) can be applied in a prosecution under S.294 also. To make punishable, the alleged words must be in a sense lascivious, or it must appeal to the prurient interest, or will deprave and corrupt persons. In P. T. Chacko v. Nainan Chacko reported in 1967 KHC 231 : 1967 KLT 799 this Court held that, “the test of obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.” In Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala reported in 2008 (1) KHC 812 : 2008 (2) KLT 745 : 2008 (1) KLD 339 this Court held thus, “in order to satisfy the test of obscenity, the words alleged to have been uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers.”

Thus it is quite clear that, to make obscene the alleged words must involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or the words must have the effect of depraving persons, and defiling morals by sex appeal or lustful desires. I find that the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner in this case are really abusive and humiliating, but those words cannot be said to be obscene. As already stated, every abusive word or every humiliating word cannot, by itself, be said to be obscene as defined under the Indian Penal Code . I find that the conviction against the revision petitioner under S.294(b) IPC in this case, on the basis of the above words alleged to have been used by him, is liable to be set aside, and the revision petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner under S.294(b) in ST No. 3810/1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittoor are