Kerala High Court
T.Mani vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2019
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 4TH MAGHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 3790 of 2018
AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.203/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE
J.M.F.C.-I, KOTTARAKKARA
CRIME NO.218/2017 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
T.MANI, S/O. CHINNASWAMY,
AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT DIVYA NIVAS,
ERUMATHERUVU, P.O. MANANTHAVADY,
WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANATHAVADY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
ADDL.R2 SUKANYA.M.G., W/O.ARUN PRASAD,
RESIDING AT VALAPPALA HOUSE, ASIYA QUARTERS,
MILK SOCIETY ROAD, ERUMATHERUVU P.O, MANATHAVADY,
WAYANAD DISTRICT.PIN 670645.
(ADDL R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/12/2018 IN
CRL MA 2/2018)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. REMESH CHAND--PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2019,
ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4412/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 4TH MAGHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 4412 of 2018
AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.203/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE
J.M.F.C, MANANTHAVADY
CRIME NO. 281/2017 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 M.S.MOHANAN,
S/O SUNDARAN, AGED 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MANU NIVAS, CLUBKUNNU,
P.O MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
2 M.K.JIJESH,
S/O KRISHNAN, AGED 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MKP NIVAS, ARATTUTHARA PO,
P.O MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
3 RAJESH THANKARAJ,
S/O THANKARAJ, AGED 45 YEARS,
CHETTIKKA HOUSE B STREET, P.O MANATHAVADY,
WAYANAD DISTRICT.
4 M.K.MAHESH,
S/O KRISHNAN, AGED 32 YEARS, ARATTUTHARA PO,
MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
5 M.G. RAMESH,
S/O GOPALAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MVG ALAYAM, B STREET,
P.O MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR
CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 3
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANATHAVADY POLICE STATION, PIN-670645.
2 SUKANYA M.G.,
W/O ARUN PRASAD, RESIDING AT VALAPPALA HOUSE,
AYISA QUARTERS, PAL SOCIETY ROAD, ERUMATHERUVU,
P.O MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-PIN-670645.
BY ADV. SRI.KISHOR B.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.01.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3790/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 4
ORDER
These petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.203 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mananthavady. In the aforesaid case, the accused faces indictment under Sections 506(1), 509 and 354 A
(i) (iv) r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
2. The 2nd respondent is a member of the Yadava Community. The 1st accused, who is the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.3790 of 2018, is the president of a community organization by name 'Yadava Seva Samithi' and the accused Nos. 2 to 6, who are the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.4412 of 2018, are the office bearers of the said organization. The 2nd respondent fell in love with a man belonging to the same community and she married him. This was not to the liking of the petitioners. She was socially ostracized and was prohibited from taking part in any activities of the Yadava Community. She was also prohibited from entering her home or that of her spouse. The members of the community were also directed to keep away from her. The 2nd respondent filed complaints before various authorities and this was taken up by several right thinking persons, who felt that the restrictions imposed were unacceptable. A TV channel invited the 1 st accused and the lawyer representing the petitioners for a discussion. CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 5 In the course of discussion, the 1st accused is alleged to have blurted out that the 2nd respondent was ostracized from the community as she had become pregnant prior to her marriage. According to the 2 nd respondent, the said utterance was made by the 1 st accused and this was seen by the viewers of the TV program and was made with intent to outrage her modesty. Insofar as accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, she alleges that they also had a role in ostracizing her from the community.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the allegations, even if they are admitted in its entirety, would not make out an offence against the petitioners. The utterance cannot be a sexually coloured remark punishable under Section 354(1)
(iv) nor can it be categorized as one made with intent to outrage her modesty. Insofar as accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, they have been roped in without any cause, submits the learned counsel. It is finally submitted that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and I have perused the final report.
CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 6
5. The Apex Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj and Ors. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Ors. [(1995) 6 SCC 194], while interpreting the breadth and meaning of the word "modesty" occurring in Section 354 of the IPC had held that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. Having considered the utterances made by the 1 st accused, I do not think that the submission of the learned counsel can be accepted. Stating that she had become pregnant before her marriage would tantamount to proclaim that she was unchaste and immoral. Those words would definitely tantamount to an outrage of female modesty. Any word spoken or sung, picture or figure exhibited which suggests lewd thoughts is immoral and insulting to female modesty, unless it is shown that the woman was also a consenting party. In view of the above, I am of the view that the 1 st accused is not entitled to get the proceedings as against him brought to a premature termination.
6. However, insofar as the accused Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned the only allegation is that they were also instrumental in taking a decision to keep the 2 nd respondent away from the community. No other allegation is leveled against them. I am of the view that the CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 7 uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie do not establish the offence as against accused Nos.2 to 6. The chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue in so far as they are concerned. I am inclined to allow the petition insofar as it concerns accused Nos. 2 to 6.
In the result, Crl.M.C. No.4412 of 2018 is allowed and Annexure-A2 final report and the proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 6 in Crime No.281 of 2017, now pending as C.C. No.203 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mananthavady are quashed.
Crl.M.C. No.3790 of 2018 is dismissed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE krj //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 8 APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3790/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT WITH CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.203/2018 CASE ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MANANTHAVADY.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.WITH F.I.STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 281/2017 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THIS HON'BLE COURT'S ORDER IN CRL.M.C.3431 OF 2017.APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 4412/2018
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT WITH CHARGE SHEET IN CC 203/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE JFCM COURT MANANTHAVADY.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR & FI STATEMENT IN CRIME 0281/17 OF MANATHAVADY POLICE.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRIMINAL MC 4509/2017 CASE.