ORDER : (C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.) Petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.1058 of 2021 of Kuthiyathode Police Station, Alappuzha, now pending as C.C. No.108/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala. The offence alleged are under Sections 294 (b) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code . The petitioner seeks quashment of the crime, as also, all further proceedings therefrom, on the premise that neither the allegations in the First Information Statement, nor the contents of the Final Report, would constitute the offences afore referred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the 1 st respondent State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court to the 2 nd page of the First Information Statement to point out that, no specific word is referred to therein to ascertain whether the same is an obscene word, so as to attract the offence under Section 294 (b) of the Indian Penal Code . Both with respect to the words and with respect to the gesture alleged to have been shown by the petitioner/accused, there is no specificity of allegation, so as to attract the offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code . Except alleging that bad words were used, so as to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant, there is no version with respect to the words used or the gestures used, so as to ascertain whether the offences alleged are attracted or not. The same is the situation with respect to the Final Report, wherein also, no such words or gestures is seen specified. In such circumstances, petitioner cannot defend himself effectively, for which reason, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards the offence under Section 294 (b), petitioner relied upon a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S. Madhanagopal and Another v. K. Lalitha [ (2022) 15 S.C.R. 649 ]. Particular reference in this regard is made to the findings in paragraph no.8 of the judgment. 4. Refuting the above contentions, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent would submit that specific words to the following effect has already been referred to in the First Information Statement: "To hell with you bloody ........ Particular reference in this regard is made to the findings in paragraph no.8 of the judgment. 4. Refuting the above contentions, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent would submit that specific words to the following effect has already been referred to in the First Information Statement: "To hell with you bloody ........ You are an annoying figure ...... you are the bloodiest, you can go to hell." According to the learned counsel, there are dotted gaps after the word 'bloody' and it is only because of the decency of the defacto complainant that such words is not incorporated. The word obviously intended, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is a four letter word which starts with 'F'. Learned counsel would also point out that there is specific reference in the First Information Statement that, words used and the gestures shown were such that it outrages the modesty of the defacto complainant, which caused serious mental agony to her. As to what precise word was used and what gesture was shown, is a matter for evidence and this Court cannot pre-judge that due to the absence of the said words, the proceedings are liable to be aborted. Learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dhanisha v. Rakhi N. Raj and Another [ 2012 (2) KHC 111 ]. The counsel invited the attention of this Court to paragraph no.26, which referred to the necessity of the matter is being adjudged after trial, so as to ascertain whether the offences alleged are attracted or not. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor would also support the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The offences alleged are under Sections 294(b) and 509, of which the former is extracted herebelow: "(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both." 7. The offences alleged are under Sections 294(b) and 509, of which the former is extracted herebelow: "(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both." 7. It is clear from the above that, to attract the offence, there should be an obscene act, which is done in a public place, so as to cause annoyance to others, or in the alternative, one should sing, recite, or utter any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, again causing annoyance to others. The word 'obscene' is a necessary concomitant in both the limbs of Section 294, specified by clauses (a) and (b). Therefore, the pivotal question is whether the words alleged to have been used by the petitioner is obscene or not. 8. In the instant case, the relevant portion of the First Information Statement is extracted here below; you bloody ........ You are an annoying figure ...... you are the bloodiest; you can go to hell.." A perusal of the above referred First Information Statement would indicate that, apart from bald assertion that the words used have outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant, there is no reference to any specific word in the First Information Statement. This court cannot endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent that the dotted lines was intended to be filled up by a four letter word, which starts with 'F'. There is no room for any such inference in the absence of a specific statement by the defacto complainant. It is worthwhile to notice that the investigation has culminated in a Final Report, wherein also there is no reference, whatsoever, with respect to the word used, or the gesture shown. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner cannot exercise his right of effective defence, unless he is put to notice, with precision, of the charge which he is supposed to answer. Mere reference to the offences is not sufficient. What is actually required is a depiction of the act constituting the offences, so as to enable the petitioner/accused to defend the same. Mere reference to the offences is not sufficient. What is actually required is a depiction of the act constituting the offences, so as to enable the petitioner/accused to defend the same. In that respect, there is complete dearth of the words alleged to have been employed by the petitioner/accused, which even prevents the Court from ascertaining whether the same is obscene or not, without which exercise, a finding of conviction in respect of an offence under Section 294(b) cannot be made. 9. Now, the offence under Section 509 is extracted herewith; "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." Here, the catch word is, again, insulting the modesty of a woman by any words, sound or gesture or by the exhibition of any object. The word modesty of a woman has received interpretation in the context of Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code . In State of Kerala v. Hamsa [ 1988 (2) KLT 89 ], it was held that the legislature had in mind by using the word modesty, the protection of an attribute, which is peculiar to a woman, as a virtue which attaches to a female on account of her sex. The essence of woman's modesty is her sex. The modesty of an adult female is writ large on her body. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. An act, which could be perceived as one capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman, will amount to an act outraging the modesty of the woman. Modesty is the quality of being modest and in relation to woman, it is womanly propriety of behavior, scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct. In the instant facts, as already indicated, there is no specific word or gesture forthcoming so as to ascertain whether the same is intended to insult the modesty of a woman. A solitary reference in the First Information Statement that the petitioner's spoke of the defacto complainant as an annoying figure, by itself, is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the same is intended to insult the modesty of the woman. A solitary reference in the First Information Statement that the petitioner's spoke of the defacto complainant as an annoying figure, by itself, is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the same is intended to insult the modesty of the woman. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the expression used may be annoying, but such annoyance, by itself, is neither sufficient to attract the offence under Section 294 (b), nor of Section 509 . 10. As already indicated, the Final Report is conspicuously silent as regards the words which would allegedly constitute the offences alleged. 11. In such circumstances, this Court finds no reason to compel the petitioner to face the trial. This Court is of the opinion that, even if the contents of the First Information Statement and that the Final Report is fully established in trial, the same cannot result in conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 294 (b) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code . In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case succeeds and Crime No.1058/2021 of Kuthiyathode Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No.108/2022 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala, will accordingly stand quashed.