ORDER : 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No. 197/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam. The petitioner herein is the accused in the above case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available. 3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 509 and 506(1) of IPC. This crime was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant on 04.05.2018 before the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam, then forwarded to the Station House Officer concerned. As per the complaint lodged, there is allegation that, on 17.04.2018 the accused herein had parked his car in front of the store run by the defacto complainant, obstructing the work in the store. When the defacto complainant requested to remove the car, the accused abused and shouted at the defacto complainant. Acting on the complaint, the crime was registered and after investigation Final Report also filed alleging the above said offences. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations are false and the petitioner is innocent. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by the complaint initially lodged, a copy of the same is produced as Annexure-A3, there is no mention regarding the words used by the accused to abuse the defacto complainant or how and why he shouted against the defacto complainant. Even though, additional statement of the defacto complainant also was recorded, nothing stated to attract offences punishable under Sections 509 and 506(1) of IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for quashment of the proceedings. 5. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, the allegations are serious and the matter would require trial. Therefore, the quashment prayer cannot be considered. 6. While appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to address the essentials required to constitute offences punishable under Sections 509 and 506(i) of IPC. 7. 5. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, the allegations are serious and the matter would require trial. Therefore, the quashment prayer cannot be considered. 6. While appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to address the essentials required to constitute offences punishable under Sections 509 and 506(i) of IPC. 7. Coming to Section 509 of IPC, it is provided that 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 three years and also with fine. 8. Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘BNS’ for short] is the provision analogous to Section 509 of IPC. The same is as under: 79. Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman - Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object in any form, 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 three years, and also with fine. 9. Section 506 of IPC, it is provided that, whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 10. Section 503 of IPC deals with criminal intimidation and it has been provided that, whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, 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 threat, commits criminal intimidation. 11. Section 351 of the BNS is the provision analogous to Section 503 of IPC. 11. Section 351 of the BNS is the provision analogous to Section 503 of IPC. The same is as under: 351. Criminal intimidation: (1) Whoever threatens another by any means, with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, 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 threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation - A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. 12. Insofar as the offence under Section 509 of the IPC is concerned, 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, is an offence. 13. In the decision in Joseph M.V. v. State of Kerala, 2024 KHC Online 440 : 2024 KER 36566, in paragraph Nos. 11 to 13, this Court held as under: “11. In order to bring home an offence punishable under S.509 IPC, the ingredients are; utterance of any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, with an intention to insult the modesty of a woman, or with intention to intrude upon the privacy of such a woman. 12. Coming to the definition of the word ‘modesty’ the same has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. So it is worth to look into its dictionary meaning. 12. Coming to the definition of the word ‘modesty’ the same has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. So it is worth to look into its dictionary meaning. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Third Edition) modesty is the quality of being modest and in relation to woman means “womanly propriety of behaviour, scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct.” The word ‘modest’ in relation to woman is defined in the above dictionary as “decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd; shamefast.” Webster’s Third new International Dictionary of the English Language defines modesty as “freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency’ a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct.” In the Oxford English Dictionary (1993 Ed) the meaning of the word ‘modesty’ is given as “womanly propriety of behaviour, scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman); reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions.” 13. To sum up, mere utterance of unpleasant or abusive words without an intention either to insult the modesty of the woman or to intrude upon the privacy of such woman would not attract offence under S.509 of IPC. Here the allegation is confined to use of a proverb which contains an abusive element, as extracted herein above. Merely because the accused made a comment/proverb which contains an abusive element, in reply to a humiliating comment made by the defacto complainant, stating that the sim seemed like one bitten by a dog, it could not be held that the accused either insulted the modesty of a woman or intruded on her privacy.” 14. In the instant case, in the private complaint and in the additional statement also given by the defacto complainant, there is no mention regarding the words used by the accused to abuse the defacto complainant or how and why he shouted against the defacto complainant. Hence, the overt acts at the instance of the accused, in no way suggest any sexual intent or words to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant or to intrude upon the privacy of the defacto complainant. 15. Hence, the overt acts at the instance of the accused, in no way suggest any sexual intent or words to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant or to intrude upon the privacy of the defacto complainant. 15. While searching the ingredients to attract offence under Section 506(1) of IPC along with definition of the term ‘criminal intimidation’ dealt under Section 503 of IPC, a stray sentence was stated in the additional statement of the defacto complainant that, the accused stated that the shop of the defacto complainant would be closed by the accused. Apart from this stray sentence, nothing alleged to see the elements of criminal intimidation and in the initial statement of the defacto complainant this stray sentence also not disclosed. 16. Further, it is relevant to note that, the accused herein filed Annexures.A4 and A6 complaints against the defacto complainant, as early on 18.04.2018 and Annexure.A5 is the receipt pertaining to Annexure.A4 complaint. But, no action taken thereof. 17. Overall evaluation of the materials available, it could be seen that, difference of opinion in the matter of parking of the car by the accused in front of the shop of the defacto complainant and the exchange of words sprouted there from, led to registration of this crime. Thus, the prosecution allegation as to commission of offences punishable under Sections 509 and 506(1) of IPC by the petitioner/accused not made out from the materials available, prima facie. Therefore, the quashment sought for is liable to be allowed. 18. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 197/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, as against the petitioner/accused stand quashed.