ORDER : The prayers in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are as follows: “(i). Quash Annexure No.A1 and Annexure A2 in crime No.404/2015 of Thiruvambady Police Station, and (ii). Pass any appropriate order as deemed just and proper.” 2. Heard Sri.Jikku Seban George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (accused) and Sri.B.Jayasurya, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 (State) and Sri.S.R.K.Prathap, learned counsel appearing for R-2 (lady defacto complainant). 3. The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant impugned Anx.A1 Crime No.404/2015 of Thiruvambady Police Station, Kozhikode District, for offences punishable under Secs.153 & 506 of the IPC. The gist of the allegations against the petitioner in the above crime is that, on 24.10.2015 the petitioner had allegedly sent a picture/photograph through Whatsapp from his mobile number to the mobile cell number of one Sri.C.V.Sunit and the transmitted picture/photograph was the campaign poster of the 2nd respondent lady defacto complainant in which the faces of the 2nd respondent who was a candidate as well the national leader of a political party were disfigured. It appears that the 2nd respondent was made aware of the said photograph through her nephew who came in possession of the same. Anx.A-1 is the copy of FIR which led to the registration of Crime No.404/2015 of Thiruvambady Police Station, on 25.10.2015 in which the petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused for offences punishable under Secs.153 & 506 of the IPC. The police after investigation has filed the impugned Anx.A-2 final report/charge sheet for the abovesaid offences as per Secs.153 & 509 of the IPC. 4. The main contentions urged by the petitioner are to the effect that even if the abovesaid allegations are completely assumed to be true, still the vital ingredients for constituting the offence as per Secs.153 & 509 of the IPC are not disclosed in the instant case. Per contra, the learned Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent lady defacto complainant would urge that no interference would call for in this case and that the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out in this case and the petitioner will have to stand for trial, etc. 5. Sec.153 of the IPC provides as follows: “153. 5. Sec.153 of the IPC provides as follows: “153. Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot— if rioting be committed—if not committed.—Whoever malignantly, or wantonly, by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.” 6. In the instant case the specific allegation against the petitioner is that, he had sent the said disfigured photograph of the 2nd respondent and that of her national party leader through Whatsapp to one person one Sri.C.V.Sunit and later the 2nd respondent’s nephew had became aware about the said transmission of photograph. There are no allegations that the petitioner has sent any Whatsapp messages on a group basis. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has made available the photograph of original election poster and the photograph said to have been transmitted by the petitioner in which the photographs of the 2nd respondent and the national party leader have been disfigured. 8. A reading of the provisions contained in Sec.153 of the IPC would disclose that the same is a provision envisaging an offence which deals with wantonly giving provocation with intend to cause riot, etc. It is stipulated therein that whoever malignantly or wantonly by doing anything which is illegal gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. 9. “Rioting” defined in Sec.146 of the IPC, reads as follows: “146. 9. “Rioting” defined in Sec.146 of the IPC, reads as follows: “146. Rioting.—Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. ” 10. It is stipulated in Sec.146 of the IPC that whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. 11. Sec.141 of the IPC deals with “unlawful assembly” which reads as follows: “141. Unlawful assembly.—An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is— (First) — To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or (Second) —To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or (Third)— To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or (Fourth)— By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or (Fifth)— By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation.—An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.” 12. One of the prime requirements to constitute the offence of “unlawful assembly” as per Sec.141 of the IPC is that, there should be an assembly of atleast 5 or more persons and subject to fulfilment of other ingredients mentioned therein. 13. The term “force” defined in Sec.349 of the IPC reads as follows: “349. One of the prime requirements to constitute the offence of “unlawful assembly” as per Sec.141 of the IPC is that, there should be an assembly of atleast 5 or more persons and subject to fulfilment of other ingredients mentioned therein. 13. The term “force” defined in Sec.349 of the IPC reads as follows: “349. Force.—A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other’s body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other’s sense of feeling: Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described. (First)— By his own bodily power. (Secondly)—By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person. (Thirdly)— By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.” 14. From a reading of the materials on record more particularly from Anx.A-1 FIR and Anx.A-2 final report it can be seen that, the prosecution does not have even remotely whispered anywhere therein that atleast 5 or more persons have been involved in the alleged acts in question. Therefore there is no question of fulfilling the essential definition of unlawful assembly as per Sec.141 of the IPC in this case and therefore there is no question of fulfilling the essential ingredient of Sec.146 of the IPC dealing with rioting. Moreover, it cannot be said that the act on the part of the petitioner accused herein in sending Whatsapp message to a single person would amount to use/resort of force as per Sec. 349 of the IPC. Hence, the abovesaid necessary ingredients of force as per Sec. 349 of the IPC and unlawful assembly as per Sec.141 of the IPC are consequently absent in the allegations of the prosecutrix in this case. Hence, the abovesaid necessary ingredients of force as per Sec. 349 of the IPC and unlawful assembly as per Sec.141 of the IPC are consequently absent in the allegations of the prosecutrix in this case. That apart it cannot be said even for a moment that, the act on the part of the petitioner in sending a single Whatsapp message to another person whereby the photographs of the 2nd respondent who stood as candidate in the local body election, as well as her national party leader in a disfigured manner, would amount to an act of malignantly or wantonly doing anything which is illegal so as to provoke any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting as understood in Sec.146 of the IPC. 15. On a perusal of the photographs given by the learned counsel appearing of the 2nd respondent it appears that, the pictures of both the 2nd respondent as well as her national party leader have been disfigured in such a manner so as to make it appear as if the 2nd respondent has squinted eyes, and that the national party leader has got very long hair with beard as well as spectacle and the attempt appears to be to poke fun at them and thus to criticize the 2nd respondent who was then standing as a candidate to local body election. Such an act cannot be said to be fulfilling the said necessary requirements in Sec.153 of the IPC as aforestated. True that, the 2nd respondent may feel offended by the act of the petitioner in sending such disfigured photograph through Whatsapp. Said criticism may be a subjective act on the part of the petitioner and it may not be very much to the liking of the support of the 2nd respondent. But it has to be understood that, any ordinary person may even otherwise think that the criticism of the petitioner may not be fully justified. Such act on the part of the petitioner cannot be described as one which would amount to malignantly or wantonly doing anything which is illegal so as to provoke any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting as aforesaid. Such act on the part of the petitioner cannot be described as one which would amount to malignantly or wantonly doing anything which is illegal so as to provoke any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting as aforesaid. In the first place, the necessary ingredients of rioting as understood in Sec.146 of the IPC are consequently absent for the simple reason that the necessary ingredients of unlawful assembly as per Sec.141 and force as per Sec.349 of the IPC are not disclosed in the instant case. Moreover, it is by now well settled by a series of rulings of various High Courts as in the case in State of Orissa v. R.C. Chowla [(1966) CrLJ 1171] that “a mere chance of provocation is however, not sufficient to justify a conviction under the said section”. In the light of these aspects this Court is constrained to take the view that the essential ingredients of the offences as per Sec.153 of the IPC are not disclosed even going by the admitted case of the prosecution in the instant case. 16. Now the next issue is as to whether the ingredients as per Sec.509 of the IPC are made out in this case. Sec.509 of the IPC provides as follows: “509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.—Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.” 17. It is well settled by the rulings of this Court as in the case in Basheer v. State of Kerala [2014 (4) KLT SN 65] that, “mere insult will not attract Sec.509 of the IPC and for a prosecution under Sec.509 to lie there must be a definite allegation of insult to the modesty of women or intrusion to the modesty of women or intrusion to the privacy of women. So, the allegations must involve modesty of women or privacy of women and mere insult or false allegation will not attract the prosecution under Sec.509 of the IPC”. So, the allegations must involve modesty of women or privacy of women and mere insult or false allegation will not attract the prosecution under Sec.509 of the IPC”. So also it has been held in decisions as in State of Kerala v. Hamsa [ 1988 (2) KLT 89 ] that, “the test of the outrage of modesty must, therefore, be whether a reasonable man will think that the act of the offender was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the modesty of the woman. In considering the question, he must imagine the woman to be a reasonable woman and keep in view all circumstances concerning her, such as, her station and way of life and known notions of modesty of such a woman”. 18. In the instant case the allegation of the 2nd respondent is that, the petitioner had sent a Whatsapp message to his friend one Sri.C.V.Sunit, containing a disfigured photograph of the 2nd respondent and her national party leader, and later when her nephew (elder sister's son) had come to know of it, had told Sri.C.V.Sunit to send the Whatsapp message to his mobile number so as to show the same to the 2nd respondent, etc. 19. After hearing both sides this Court is of the considered view that the alleged act on the part of the petitioner in having sending disfigured photograph of the 2nd respondent showing as if she is having squint eyes and that of the national party leader showing as if he has got long hair with beard and a spectacle etc cannot be said to be an act done by the petitioner with a mens rea to insult the modesty of the 2nd respondent. At best it can be seen as an extreme critique or satire made by the petitioner on the 2nd respondent on account of his political differences with the political party of the 2nd respondent. Further, in the light of abovesaid allegations made in the FIS it cannot be said that the act of the petitioner in having send a single Whatsapp message to his friend would amount to an act whereby legal knowledge to be imputed on the petitioner that such message is likely to come to the knowledge of the 2nd respondent or that it is likely to cause insult to the modesty or intrude upon the privacy of the 2nd respondent, etc. In the light of all these aspects this Court is also constrained to take the view that the vital ingredients of the offence as per Sec.509 of the IPC are not made out in the instant case. Hence, it is only to be held that the initiation and continuance of impugned criminal proceedings at Anx. A-1 FIR and Anx.A-2 final report which has led to the institution of C.C.No.1184/2015 on the file of the JFCM-II, Thamarassery, Kozhikode, would require interdiction at the hands of this Court, as otherwise it will amount to an abuse of the process of court. 20. Accordingly it is ordered that all proceedings in pursuance of the impugned proceedings at Anx.A2 final report/charge sheet arising out of Anx.A-1 Crime No.404/2015 of Thiruvambady Police Station, which has led to the institution of C.C.No.1184/2015 on the file of the JFCM-II, Thamarassery, Kozhikode, and further proceedings emanating there from will stand quashed and set aside. 21. The petitioner will produce certified copy of this order before the JFCM-II, Thamarassery, as well as before the investigating officer concerned, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand disposed of.