Allegations of intimidation must demonstrate a credible threat; mere words without intent or means lack sufficiency for criminal charges.

O R D E R Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2026 The accused persons in CC. No.1866/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi, arising out of Crime No.1616/2021 of Palluruthy Police Station, filed this petition being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate in CMP. No.1630/2023, dismissing the said application with respect to the offence under Section 506 (ii) of IPC . In the final report filed by the police offences under Sections 294(b), 506 r/w 34 were included. The petitioners filed CMP. No.1630/2023 praying for discharge. As per the order dated 25.8.2023, the learned Magistrate allowed the said application in part, discharged them of the offence under Section 294(b) of and decided to proceed against them under (ii) of the . Being aggrieved by the said order, they preferred this revision petition.

2. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the offence under Section 506 IPC is non-cognizable and as such in the absence of sanction under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate was not justified in proceeding further against them under Section

506 of IPC alone.

3. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the allegations raised against the petitioners do not constitute the offence under Section 506 (ii) of IPC . Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order to the extent it dismissed the prayer for discharge.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that since Section 294(b) IPC is cognizable and the police investigated the offences under Section 294(b) as well as under Section 506 together and filed final report, even if subsequently it was found that the offence under Section 294(b) will not sustain, the Magistrate can proceed under Section

506 of IPC , without sanction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.

5. Section 506 of IPC reads as follows:

“506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

6. Section 503 IPC defines criminal intimidation as follows:

“503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.”

7. In the instant case, the only allegation against the petitioners in the FI statement is that while he was riding bicycle, the waste water poured by the 1^st accused fell on his T-Shirt. When he questioned the above conduct of the 1^st accused, she retorted that “എൻ(cid:3) വ(cid:6)ട(cid:8)ൽ എന(cid:8)ക(cid:12) ഇഷമ(cid:16)ളത(cid:12) ക(cid:20)ണ(cid:8)ക(cid:16)(cid:22).” When he replied that he will report the matter to t