Kerala High Court
Neelakantan vs State Of Kerala on 6 July, 2017
Author: B. Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2017/15TH ASHADHA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 5258 of 2015 ()
---------------------------
CC 2452/2013 of J.M.F.C.-III, TRIVANDRUM
CRIME NO. 847/2013 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM
-----------------------
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
--------------------------------
NEELAKANTAN, AGED 68 YEARS,
S/O.LATE PREMJI, FLAT NO BF 6435,PANDIT COLONY,
NANTHANCODE WARD, KOWDIAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, 682031
2. ANASWARA
D/O.USHA KUMARI, 'THUSHARA', KARUVISERI P O,
KOZHIKODE 10(WORKING AS STAFF REPORTER,
AMRITA T V SREE FLATS, 4/3, IST FLOOR,
KRISHNASWAMY STREET,
NORTH USMAN ROAD, T NAGAR, CHENNAI 17
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 5258 of 2015 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE:- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 847/2013
OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
STK
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.5258 of 2015
----------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2017
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.2452/2013 on the files of the court below. The second respondent is the defacto complainant. The offences alleged are the offences under Sections 506(i) IPC and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act.
2. The prosecution allegation is that while the second respondent was working as Sub Editor in Amritha T.V., the petitioner, who was working as Chief Executive Editor, called the second respondent over desk phone and abused the second respondent and threatened her for not performing well in a programme conducted by her. The petitioner also threatened the defacto complainant that the second respondent would be dealt with if the second respondent would not do the things properly. The second respondent filed a complaint before the Human Resource Crl.M.C. No.5258 of 2015 -: 2 :- Development officer. Thereafter, on 18.05.2013 in the evening, somebody had threatened her over public phone that if she would continue with the complaint, she would be done away.
3. This Crl.M.C. has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the final report and further proceedings against the petitioner in the above said case.
4. Heard.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offence under Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act had been struck down by the Apex Court as per the decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [2015 (2) KLT 1 (SC)] and in the said circumstances, no prosecution for the said offence can be sustained. In Shreya Singhal (supra), the Apex Court struck down Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act stating that it is violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved by Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
6. The only offence now remaining is the offence Crl.M.C. No.5258 of 2015 -: 3 :- under Section 506(i) IPC. In order to attract Section 506(i) IPC, there should be criminal intimidation as provided under Section 503 IPC, which provides 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.
7. In this case, having gone through the allegations raised against the petitioner, I am of the view that the allegations are not sufficient to constitute the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC so as to attract the offence under Section 506(i) IPC.
8. The interaction between the petitioner and the second respondent was over telephone even as per the prosecution case. Admittedly, the petitioner was the Superior Officer of the second respondent during the Crl.M.C. No.5258 of 2015 -: 4 :- relevant period. It is discernible from the materials that there was some flop in the programme conducted by the second respondent through the channel. It appears from the materials collected that the petitioner must have at that time scolded the second respondent, who was his subordinate officer, in the natural course of conduct. Eventhough the incident alleged was on 3.4.2013, the matter was informed to the Police by her only on 13.6.2013. It is also to be noted from the statement of the second respondent itself that the complaint of the second respondent was found to be not correct even by the Women's Cell attached to that office.
9. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am of the considered view that no successful prosecution against the petitioner can be sustained on the basis of the allegations and the materials collected by the Police. In the said circumstances, no purpose will be served even if the prosecution against the petitioner is permitted to be continued. For the said reason, I am inclined to quash Crl.M.C. No.5258 of 2015 -: 5 :- Annexure-A1 final report and further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.2454/2013 on the files of the court below, in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK //TRUE COPY// //P.A. TO JUDGE//