Non-cognizable offences pursued without necessary sanctions result in abuse of process.

O R D E R

(Dated this the 25th day of February, 2026)

The petitioners are the accused persons 1 and 2 in C.C.No.1396 of 2018 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, arising out of Crime No.1462 of 2018 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. They filed this Crl.M.C under Section 482 Cr.PC praying for quashing all further proceedings against them. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 27.06.2018 at about

6.00 p.m., the 1^st accused abused the de facto complainant, who was a minor, using filthy words and the 2nd accused intimidated to break his leg and thereby, they are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this is a false case foisted against the petitioners. Further, according to the learned counsel, even if the allegations levelled against the petitioners is believed as such, the same will not constitute the offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC. Further, according to the learned counsel, the offence under Section 506(i) IPC is non-cognizable and that the FIR was registered without obtaining necessary sanction under Section 155 (2) Cr.PC. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The petition was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Though notice was served on the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant, he did not turn up.

6. On a perusal of the FI statement as well as the further statement given by the de facto complainant, it can be seen that there is no allegation that the petitioners have used any obscene words to insult the victim. Since the prosecution has no case that the accused persons used any obscene words to abuse the victim, the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not made out.

7. It appears that the accused persons warned the de facto complainant from using their property as a pathway. It was in connection with the same, the alleged incident occurred. The words allegedly used by the 2^nd petitioner is that, in case the de facto complainant used the said pathway, his legs will be broken. The incident occurred in connection with the use of the pathway through the property of the petitioners and the petitioners denies the existence of any such pathway through their property. It appears that the de facto complainant went for tuition through the property of the petitioners and the warning is only to the effect that, in case he uses the said property as pathway, his legs will be broken. The above words used by the petitioner is not sufficient to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 IPC. Moreover, since the offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is not made out and Section 506(i) IPC is a non-cognizable offence, the bar under 155(2)

Cr.PC is also attracted in this case.

8. Therefore, continuation of further proceedings against the petitioners will only be an abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the same is liable to be quashed by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC.

In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1396 of 2018 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, arising from Crime No.1462 of 2018 of Pathanamthitta Police Station., is quashed under Section 482 Cr.PC.

Sd/-

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE ADS APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 3770 OF 2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND THE FIR DATED

02-07-2018 IN CRIME NO. 1462 OF 2018 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.