Court's power under Section 482 CPC is limited to assessing the sufficiency of allegations without conducting a mini-trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 15TH MAGHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 6155 OF 2022 CRIME NO.1728/2019 OF Angamali Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.17 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

JOHNY, AGED 62 YEARS THETTAYIL HOUSE, VALAVAZHI BHAGAM, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572 BY ADVS.

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SMT.N.P.ASHA RESPONDENTS/STATE/VICTIM:

1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OFKERALA (CRIME NO. 1728/2019 OF ANGAMALY POLICESTATION, ERNAKULMA DISTRICT ), PIN - 682031 2 THOMAS,S/O. ANTONY, PADAYATTIL, VALAVAZHI BHAGAM, ANGAMALYVILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572BY ADVS.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.P.PRASANTH SMT.SMRUTHI SASIDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2026, THE COURT ON 04.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Crl.M.C No.6155 of 2022 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.17/2020 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Angamaly (Trial Court), which has originated from Crime No.1728/2019 registered by the Angamaly Police Station, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).

2. The petitioner has filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C, for brevity), to quash all further proceedings in the above case.

3. The second respondent had lodged Annexure-I FIR with the Angamaly Police Station, inter alia, stating that, on 25.09.2019, at around 07.00 hours, while the second respondent was going for his regular morning walk along the Valavazhi Road, the accused drove his car directly towards the second respondent and intimidated him with a fear of death. On seeing the speeding vehicle, the second respondent moved aside, which saved his life. Immediately, the petitioner took a sharp turn and drove away. The above incident had caused a reasonable apprehension and fear of death in the mind of the second respondent. The incident was witnessed by one Vijayan.

The petitioner harbours animosity towards the second respondent due to a pending litigation. The second respondent is a heart patient and is currently admitted to the hospital for treatment.

4. The Police, after investigation, filed Annexure- II final report. The gravamen of the final report is as follows:

“On 25.09.2019, at about 07:00 hours, the accused person (petitioner), out of his previous animosity and with an intention to instil fear in the mind of the second respondent, drove the car bearing registration No. KL-63-C-779 towards the second respondent, causing a fear of death to him”.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that, even if the allegations in the FIR and the final report are taken on their face value, the same will not attract the offence under Section 506 IPC . The mere allegation made by the second respondent that the petitioner had intimidated him is not sufficient to attract the offence under 506 . There should be a real threat to cause death or grievous hurt to the victim to attract the above offence. Even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it will not result in a conviction. The learned counsel relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble Suprem