Insufficient evidence for charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 353, and 506 leads to quashing of proceedings.

ORDER

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.760 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Sulthan Bathery. The case originated from Crime No.412 of 2020 registered at the Kenichira Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code . The crime was registered on the allegation that, on 15.05.2020, at 4 pm, when the 3^rd respondent along with Covid volunteers went to the Homestay named “Hiliya Homes” situated in Edakkad for the purpose of taking over a portion of the Homestay to run it as a Covid Care Centre by accommodating suspected Covid patients, the petitioner prevented the officials from discharging their duty, abused them in filthy language and threatened to let loose his dog at them.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if the prosecution allegations are taken in its face value and accepted in their entirety, none of the alleged offences will be attracted against the petitioner. In elaboration of the contention, learned counsel made the following submissions;

On 31.03.2020, the petitioner received a call from the Panchayat directing him to surrender the Homestay. The petitioner, thereupon informed the authorities that his family is in home quarantine and cannot move out for the time being. Thereafter, two officials of the Panchayat came to the Homestay on 06.05.2020 armed with a requisition for handing over the keys of 8 rooms. The petitioner thereupon handed over the keys to the officials under protest and was issued with Annexure A III receipt. Later, on 14.05.2020, petitioner preferred a representation to the District Collector, Wayanad, requesting to exempt the home (farm) stay, from requisition, as the petitioner and his family is residing in the same building and carrying out agricultural operations in the property. On 14.05.2020 itself, seven persons came to the farmstay without wearing mask or following the Covid protocol and introduced themselves as volunteers deputed by the Secretary of the Panchayat and demanded to surrender the keys. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred another representation to the District Collector on 15.05.2020, pointing out Covid protocol violation and high-handedness on the part of the volunteers. That afternoon, a group of people came to the petitioner's farmstay and demanded to open the rooms. On being informed that the petitioner's representation seeking exemption is pending before the District Collector, and that his family is in home quarantine, the members of the group got infuriated and misbehaved with the petitioner and his wife. The complaint containing false allegations was submitted to the police thereafter.

3. Learned counsel contended that for attracting the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC , the words used must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of persons hearing it. Further, in the absence of allegation in the final report that the petitioner had assaulted or used criminal force against the de facto complainant and others, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 353 of . In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision in Jaidas v. State of Kerala and Another [ 2017 (1) KHC 669 ]. It is then contended that, for the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of to be attracted, the threat extended must be capable of causing the other person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. According to learned counsel, the allegations in the final report and the materials produced by the prosecution do not make out the alleged offences.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that, being