Accusations must establish a prima facie case for offences under IPC; otherwise, proceedings can be quashed.

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.2439 of 2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur (for short, 'the trial court').

2. The petitioner is the accused and respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.2439 of 2018 pending on the files of the trial court. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 294(b) of the IPC .

3. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 were admittedly business partners. It is also admitted that there arose disputes between them in connection with their business, which resulted in the institution of private complaints by the petitioner against the respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Annexures IV, V and VI are those private complaints. Annexure III is the FIS, which led to the institution of the crime against the petitioner. Admittedly there is a delay of three months in lodging Annexure III FIS. It is also evident that Annexure III FIS has been registered as per Annexures IV, V and VI private complaints instituted by the petitioner against the respondent No.2. The case of the respondent No.2 in the FIS as well as in her statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C . has to be viewed in this background.

4. The prosecution allegation as revealed from Annexure I final report is that on 24.07.2018 at 8.00 p.m., the petitioner trespassed into the living room of the hostel where the respondent No.2 was staying, caught hold of her hand, further abused her over phone and thereby committed the offence. The above Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.2439 of 2018 on the files of the trial court on the ground that no offence has been attracted against the petitioner.

5. I have heard Sri.B.Pramod, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Thareeq Anver K., the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Sri.Sangeetha Raj N.R., the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation in the final report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out any case against the petitioner. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are sufficient materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime and when a prima facie case is made out, the jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( Cr.P.C .) cannot be invoked.

7. In the Annexure III FIS, the allegation is that on 24.07.2018 at 8.00 p.m., the petitioner trespassed into her home and caught hold of her left hand in the presence of her two sons and staff. It is alleged that she sustained mental strain and agony on account of the said act. It is also alleged that the petitioner used to call her on the telephone and showered abusive words. This is the sum and substance of the FIS. In the statement given by the respondent No.2 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C ., she only stated that the place of occurrence is not her home but the guest room of the hostel where she was staying on rent. There are two occurrence witnesses. They are the staff of the respondent No.2. Their statements would show that the incident took place at the house of the respondent No.2. They have also stated that the petitioner trespassed into the house of the respondent No.2 and caught hold of her left hand.

8. In order to attract Section 294 (b) of the IPC , the accused must sing, recite or utter any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place. The respondent No.2 has no case that the place of incident is a public place. In the FIS, her