Criminal intimidation and verbal abuse are insufficient to constitute offenses under IPC; necessary sanctions are mandatory for non-cognizable offenses under the Kerala Police Act.

ORDER

(Order dated 9^th March, 2026)

The sole accused in CC No.1159/2021 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Thiruvananthapuram arising out of Crime No.2151 of 2019 of the Medical College Police Station, filed this Crl.MC under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294 (b) and 506(1) of the IPC and Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 . The Prosecution case is that on 09.09.2019 at about 2.20 pm, the accused called the defacto complainant over mobile phone and abused her in filthy words. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner are believed as such, the same does not constitute the offences punishable under Section 294 (b) as well as under Section 506 (i) of the . Further according to the learned counsel, the remaining offence being under (o) of the KP Act is non-cognizable, further proceedings against the petitioner will only be an abuse of the process of court and therefore, the learned counsel prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

3. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant as well as by the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Since the allegations against the petitioner is that he abused the defacto complainant over mobile phone, the offence punishable under Section 294 (b) of IPC is not attracted in this case.

5. Further allegation is that the petitioner intimidated the defacto complainant. On a perusal of the FI statement, it can be seen that the only allegation raised against the petitioner in that respect is that he had spoken in a threatening voice. The above allegation raised against the petitioner will not amount to criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 of the IPC . Therefore, the offence under Section 506 of the is not made out in this case.

6. The only remaining offence is under Section 120 (o) of the KP Act. From the conduct of the petitioner, it is true that he has abused the defacto complainant over telephone and as such, the offence under (o) of the KP Act is prima facie made out. However, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the offence punishable under (o) of the KP Act is a non-cognizable offence and as such, for taking cognizance of the same, sanction under Section 155(2) of the CrPC is required. In the instant case, the prosecution has no case that any sanction under Section 155(2) CrPC was obtained for taking cognizance of the offence under (o) of the KP Act, especially when prima facie the offence under Section 294 (b) of the IPC is not made out. In the above circumstances, cognizance taken under (o) of the KP Act is also unsustainable and as such, further proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

Therefore, this Criminal MC is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.1159/2021 of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed.

SD/-