Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Pramod Yesodharan vs State Of Kerala on 25 January, 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

              TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/14TH CHAITHRA, 1939

                                    Crl.MC.No. 1536 of 2017 ()
                                        ---------------------------

  CRIME NO. 2629/2016 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA


PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------

               PRAMOD YESODHARAN
               S/O.YESODHARAN,
               LALITHA BHAVAN, AGASTHYACODE,
               ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM


                    BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD

RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------

                1. STATE OF KERALA
                    REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                    HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

               2. NAIVED GEORGE EAPEN
                    S/O.GEORGE EAPEN,
                    NEDIYAKALAYIL, NARANGANAM (WEST)
                    PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (MINOR)
                    REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER GEORGE EAPEN 689 645.


                    PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI C N PRABHAKARAN

           THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-
          2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No. 1536 of 2017 ()
---------------------------

                                          APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
                     RESPONDENT

ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.2629/2016 OF
                     PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION

ANNEXURE III : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/1/2017 IN CRL.M.C.
                     NO.275/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

ANNEXURE IV : TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE-SHEET IN CRIME NO.2629/2016 OF
                            PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-----------------------


                           // True Copy //

                                                   PA to Judge



                                                                      C.R.

                 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
                     Crl.M.C No.1536 of 2017
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
               Dated this the 4th day of April 2017

                                O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2629/2016 of Pathanamthitta police station. The offence alleged as per Annexure-IV Final report is the offence under Section 509 I.P.C.

2. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner started sending messages to the 2nd respondent through Face Book from 10.7.2016 onwards, using a language, which was prurient in nature. The petitioner also used to send images to the 2nd respondent through the Face Book, Crl.M.C.1536/2017 -: 2 :- which were also prurient in nature.

3. Heard.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the de-facto complainant being a boy, the offence under Section 509 I.P.C.is not attracted.

5. Section 509 I.P.C. provides 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. It is clear from Section 509 I.P.C.that the act committed must be with the Crl.M.C.1536/2017 -: 3 :- intent to insult the modesty of any woman and with that intention, if a person 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, the offence under Section 509 I.P.C. is attracted. In order to attract the offence under Section 509 I.P.C., the victim must be a female. Therefore, if the person against whom the act is committed is not a female, the offence under Section 509 I.P.C.will not be attracted.

6. In this case, the victim is a minor boy aged 17 years. Therefore, the offence under Section 509 I.P.C. is not attracted in this case. Consequently, no successful prosecution can be sustained. Therefore, even if the Crl.M.C.1536/2017 -: 4 :- prosecution is permitted to be continued, no purpose will be served. Therefore, I am inclined to quash Annexure -IV Final Report and all further proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.2629/2016 of Pathanamthitta police station, 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 dl/5.4..2017