ORDER: G.GIRISH, J. The petitioner is the accused in CC No.515/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg. The allegation against him is that he committed offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. 2. The prosecution case is that in between 11 am and 6.30 pm, on 06.03.2018, the petitioner continuously telephoned the Sub Inspector of Police, Neeleswaram, to his land phone and mobile phone, and subjected him to verbal abuse and also threatened him from proceeding against a complaint which the Sub Inspector has received against the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 4. The case has been registered suo moto by the Sub Inspector of Police, Neeleswaram, on 06.03.2018, after he received threatening phone calls from the petitioner. It is stated that the Sub Inspector of Police had intervened, when he received a complaint from a lady that the petitioner herein had been verbally abusing her over telephone and thus harassing her. The Sub Inspector of Police, Neeleswaram, is stated to have contacted the petitioner over telephone and asked him to stop verbally abusing the above said lady. It is thereafter that the petitioner is said to have started calling the Sub Inspector of Police over telephone and threatened him with verbal abuses against initiating proceedings in this matter. 5. In the Final Report filed before the learned Magistrate, in addition to the Sub Inspector concerned, who is aggrieved by the offence, six other witnesses are arraigned for establishing the offence alleged against the petitioner. Among the above witnesses, CW2 is the lady, who preferred complaint before the Sub Inspector about the verbal abuse and harassment which she had been receiving from the petitioner over telephone. CW3 is another witness cited to establish the same point. CW4 and CW5 are witnesses cited by the prosecution to show that the phone number from which the threatening calls came, belonged to the petitioner. CW6 is a police officer of the Neeleswaram Police Station, who had witnessed the incident related to this case. CW7 is the officer, who conducted the investigation and laid the Final Report. 6. CW4 and CW5 are witnesses cited by the prosecution to show that the phone number from which the threatening calls came, belonged to the petitioner. CW6 is a police officer of the Neeleswaram Police Station, who had witnessed the incident related to this case. CW7 is the officer, who conducted the investigation and laid the Final Report. 6. On going through the aforesaid Final Report and the other relevant records relied on by the prosecution, it could be seen that the Investigating Agency had garnered all the requisite particulars to establish the offence alleged against the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case, since, admittedly, the incident relates to the alleged act of the petitioner calling the Sub Inspector concerned over telephone. It is thus argued that in the absence of any material to show that the offence took place in a public place, there is no scope of slapping the offence under Section 294(b) IPC against the petitioner. It is true that the incident involved in this case is in connection with the telephone calls which are said to have been made by the petitioner to the Sub Inspector of Police, verbally abusing and threatening him from discharging his duty. The question whether the above act would constitute the offence under Section 294(b) IPC, is a matter to be decided by the learned Magistrate at the appropriate time when the plea of the accused is sought to be recorded. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the offence under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act cannot be said to be applicable in the case on hand, since the offending telephone calls cannot be said to have prevented the officer from discharging his official duties. I am not inclined to accept the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the statement of the Sub Inspector concerned itself would reveal that the act of verbally abusing and threatening the said officer was done with a manifest intention of preventing him from proceeding further in the complaint preferred by a lady against the petitioner. I am not inclined to accept the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the statement of the Sub Inspector concerned itself would reveal that the act of verbally abusing and threatening the said officer was done with a manifest intention of preventing him from proceeding further in the complaint preferred by a lady against the petitioner. Thus, it has to be stated that the Final Report and the accompanying materials would prima facie bring home the requirements of the offence under Section 117(e) of the KP Act. In that view of the matter, it is not possible for this Court to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to terminate the prosecution proceedings in this case. Needless to say that the petition filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in CC No.515/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, is devoid of merit. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.