Legal principles regarding sufficient evidence for charges under IPC and the necessity of detailed accusal.

O R D E R Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2025 The petitioner is the sole accused in CC.No.255/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court IV, Kozhikode. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 353 , 506(ii) and 509 of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that on 1.8.2018 at about 4 p.m., due to the enmity of the accused towards CW1, who was working as an Accountant in the District Treasury Office, Kozhikode, insulted her modesty, intimidated her and deterred her from discharging her official duty and thereby he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned Magistrate after hearing both sides framed Annexure I charge against the petitioner under Sections 509 , 506(i) and 353 of IPC . Aggrieved by the above Annexure I order, the petitioner preferred this Criminal M.C.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not sufficient to make out any offence and as such Annexure A1 order of the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the prayer in this petition. 6. The petitioner is an employee of a PWD contractor, who had presented his bill for encashment before the Treasury. It appears that the petitioner approached the defacto complainant to enquire about the passing of the bill submitted by the contractor.

7. On a perusal of the FI statement, it can be seen that the petitioner was asking about the reason for rejection of his bill, to the defacto complainant. The alleged incident occurred when the reply given by the defacto complainant was not satisfactory to the the petitioner. The accusations made by the petitioner are to the effect that since the defacto complainant herself rejected the bill, she herself has to give the explanation for its rejection, that those who received share has to pass the bill, that she is not competent for the post held and hence she has to find out some other job and also that he had shown some gestures while making such comment.

8. The learned Public prosecutor would argue that gestures shown by the petitioner are enough to attract the offence under Section 509 IPC . However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the details of the gestures allegedly shown by the petitioner are not disclosed and as such no offence under is also made out.

9. It is true that in the FI statement, it is stated that the petitioner has shown some gestures. But the details of the gestures allegedly shown by the petitioner or its meaning are not disclosed in the FI statement. In the above circumstance, from the materials available on record, it cannot be held that the conduct of the petitioner amounts to the offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC .

10. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner had obstructed the defacto complainant from discharging her official duty and as such the offence under Section 353 IPC also is not made out.

11. Though Section 506 (i) IPC is also charged, since the petitioner was only protesting against the rejection of his bill and no attempt was made to intimidate the defacto complainant, the offence under (i) also is not made out. In the above circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in proceeding further against the petitioner and as such this Crl. M.C. is liable to be allowed.

In the result, this Crl. M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance to Annexure I charge, stands quashed.