Further proceedings quashed as allegations did not establish offences under IPC sections claimed.

O R D E R Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2026 The accused in CC. No.923/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, arising out of Crime No.598/2022 of Adoor Police Station, filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC, praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294 (b) and 506(i) of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that on 20.4.2022 at about 3 p.m., the accused, alleging that the defacto complainant has received excess amount for encumbrance certificate at the Akshaya Centre, where the defacto complainant was working, abused her using filthy words and intimidated her.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the allegations levelled against the petitioner does not constitute the offences punishable under Section 294 (b) and 506(i) of IPC . Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Chacko George v. State of Kerala [1968 KLT 219] in support of his argument that the words allegedly used by the petitioner in this case does not make out the offence punishable under Section

294(b) of IPC .

3. The petition was opposed by the learned Public prosecutor. Though notice was served on the defacto complainant/2^nd respondent, she did not turn up.

4. On a perusal of the FI statement, it can be seen that the defacto complainant has no case that the the petitioner has used any obscene words to insult her. In the absence of the allegations that the petitioner has used any obscene words to insult her, the offence as defined under Section 294 (b) IPC is not made out in this case.

5. As per the FI statement, the petitioner threatened her stating that “ന(cid:2)യ(cid:4)(cid:5)ന(cid:7) പ(cid:10)റത(cid:13)ക(cid:15)റങ(cid:15)വ(cid:5), ന(cid:15)നക(cid:7) ക(cid:5)ണ(cid:15)ച(cid:10) തര(cid:5)(cid:23)" According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the above words allegedly used by the petitioner does not constitute the offence under Section 506 (1) of IPC .

6. In order to constitute criminal intimidation as defined under section

503 Cr.P.C., the threat used must be 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 threats.

7. On a perusal of the words allegedly used by the petitioner, it can be seen that the same does not constitute criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 of IPC . and as such the allegations levelled against the petitioner does not constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 (i) of also.

8. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioner does not make out the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) as well as under Section 506 (i) of IPC , no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner, as the same will only be an abuse of the process of the court.

9. Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC. No.923/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, arising out of Crime No.598/2022 of Adoor Police Station, is quashed.

Sd/-