Kerala High Court
Manoj Jose vs State Of Kerala on 10 September, 2025
2025:KER:66452
Crl.M.C No.1983/2025
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 19TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1983 OF 2025
CRIME NO.3/2022 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, IDUKKI, IDUKKI
IN CC NO.103 OF 2023 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MANOJ JOSE,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS JOSEPH,
AZHAKATHU HOUSE,
CHEMMALAMATTOM, THIDANADU,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT LANGOBARDENSTRASSE,
189/3/16 A1220 VIENNA,
AUSTRIA, EUROPE.,
PIN - 686123
BY ADVS.SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
SHRI.ADITYA T.P.
SHRI.ANTONY THOMAS
RESPONDENT/STATE & INJURED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 AMAL C.V.,
S/O. C.V. VARGHESE,
CHALLAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
THANKAMANI VILLAGE,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.,
2025:KER:66452
Crl.M.C No.1983/2025
-:2:-
PIN - 685609
3 C.V. VARGHESE,
S/O. VARGHESE,
CHALLAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
THANKAMANI VILLAGE,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.,
PIN - 685609
4 JEEVAMOL C.V.,
D/O. C.V. VARGHESE,
CHALLAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
THANKAMANI VILLAGE,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.,
PIN - 685609
5 JOBIN JOLLY,
S/O. JOLLY,
AIKKARAMATTATHIL HOUSE,
PAMBADUMPARA VILLAGE,
MUNDIYERUMA P.O,
IDUKKI DISTRICT .,
PIN - 685552
6 AMBIKA GOPALAKRISHNAN,
W/O. GOPALAKRISHANAN ,
KURUPPUKKUNNEL HOUSE,
VADAKKUMURI,
THODUPUZHA VILLAGE
IDUKKI DISTRICT.,
PIN - 685586
7 BINO.R.(ASI (G) 2712 SPECIAL BRANCH),
S/O. RAMANKUTTY,
PERUMANA HOUSE,
KATTAPPANA VILLAGE,
PEZHUMKAVALA P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.,
PIN - 685508
8 BINOY JOSEPH,
S/O. JOSEPH,
PUTHANPURAICKAL HOUSE,
PARAKKADAVU,
NELLIPPARA.P.O.,
THANKAMANI VILLAGE,
2025:KER:66452
Crl.M.C No.1983/2025
-:3:-
IDUKKI DISTRICT.,
PIN - 685609
BY ADVS. SRI.JUSTINE JACOB FOR R5
SHRI.K.S.SHERIMON FOR R6
SHRI.SUMESH P.S.
SMT.MERIN JOSE
SMT.MALAVIKA RADHAKRISHNAN
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.08.2025, THE COURT ON 10.09.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66452
Crl.M.C No.1983/2025
-:4:-
ORDER
The accused in C.C.No.103/2023 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against him in the said case. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 294(b), 499, 500, 509 & 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'), and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (in short, 'K.P. Act').
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner/accused, an Austrian citizen of Kerala origin, uploaded obscene messages and news in his facebook account with an intention to insult the modesty of CW3 & CW5, and to denigrate CW2, CW4, CW6 & CW7. It is further alleged that the petitioner/accused sent e-mail messages containing obscene imputations against CW2 to CW7 to various persons, including Government Officers of Idukki District, with the intention to insult the modesty of CW3 & CW5 and to defame CW2, CW4, CW6 & CW7. Thus, the petitioner/accused is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences. The case has been registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Idukki, on the basis of the First Information Statement given by 2025:KER:66452 Crl.M.C No.1983/2025 -:5:- CW1, who is the son of CW2, and the brother of CW3. After the completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, Idukki Cyber Crime Police Station, has filed the final report alleging the commission of the aforesaid offences by the petitioner.
3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that none of the offences alleged against him in the final report, are attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is further contended that the petitioner, being an Austrian citizen, is not liable to be proceeded against for the offence committed by him outside India.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel representing the respondents 5 & 6 and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. One of the main challenges raised by the petitioner against the maintainability of the criminal prosecution against him is that he is not liable to be proceeded against, since he is an Austrian citizen and the offence has been committed outside India. It is true that the petitioner is said to be an Austrian citizen, and he allegedly posted the objectionable messages in facebook, and sent the objectionable e-mail, from a place outside India. But at the same time, it cannot be ignored 2025:KER:66452 Crl.M.C No.1983/2025 -:6:- that the consequence of the aforesaid act committed by the petitioner outside India, has ensued within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, where the victims/aggrieved persons are residing. That being so, the Idukki Police is having the jurisdiction to investigate the matter and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, is having the jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case, in view of the provisions contained under Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(in short, 'Cr.PC') (Section 199 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023). Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner against the maintainability of the criminal prosecution against him, is totally unsustainable.
6. For the offence under Section 294(b) IPC to be attracted, it has to be shown that the offender was involved in singing, reciting, or uttering obscene song, ballad or words in or near any public place. As far as the present case is concerned, the objectionable matter which the petitioner is alleged to have posted in his facebook account and sent through e-mail to various persons, are relating to the alleged immoral activities of CW2 to CW7. The illicit relationship of the aforesaid persons are highlighted in the above messages and communications. It is not 2025:KER:66452 Crl.M.C No.1983/2025 -:7:- possible to say that the aforesaid comments made by the petitioner in his facebook posts and e-mail communication would amount to obscene matter. To categorise a matter as obscene, it has to be shown that such matter was lascivious or appealing to the prurient interests, or it was of such a nature as to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to hear or see the aforesaid matter. A mere imputation attributing illicit relationship to a person cannot be termed as making an obscene comment. Therefore, there is substance in the contention of the petitioner that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC, is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. So also, the offence of defamation envisaged under Section 499 IPC, which is punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, cannot be prosecuted in a police charge, in view of the bar contained under Section 199 Cr.PC (Section222 of BNSS). Going by the provisions contained under Section 199 Cr.PC, the court concerned could take cognizance of the offences punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code only upon a complaint preferred by a person aggrieved by the said offence. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner against the maintainability of the criminal prosecution 2025:KER:66452 Crl.M.C No.1983/2025 -:8:- against him in respect of the offences under Sections 499 & 500 IPC, through a police charge, is also sustainable.
7. Any of the following two ingredients are to be made out for proceeding against an offender for the commission of offence under Section 354(D) of the IPC.
(i)The offender should have followed a woman and contacted her or attempted to contact such a woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman.
(ii)The offender should have monitored the use by a woman of the internet, e-mail or any other form of electronic communication.
8. As far as the present case is concerned, it could be seen from the facts and circumstances of the case that both the above requisites of the offence under Section 354(D) IPC are not attracted. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is not liable to be proceeded against for the commission of offence under Section 354(D) IPC, is also sustainable.
9. Coming to the applicability of Section 509 IPC, it has to be noted that the aforesaid offence is attracted, if a person insults the modesty of any woman by uttering any word, making any sound or 2025:KER:66452 Crl.M.C No.1983/2025 -:9:- gesture, or exhibiting any object with the intent that such sound or gesture or exhibition of object is heard or seen by such woman. Therefore, the matter to be looked into is whether the alleged act of the petitioner uploading objectionable lewd matter in his facebook posts and sending such matter through e-mail, with imputations against CW3 and CW5, would amount to insulting the modesty of CW3 & CW5, as envisaged under Section 509 IPC. As already stated above, the specific allegation against the petitioner, with regard to the offence under Section 509 IPC committed against CW3 & CW5, is that he uploaded vulgar messages and sent e-mails giving the imputation that CW3 & CW5 are persons of immoral character. A perusal of the materials collected by the investigating agency which include the screenshots of objectionable face-book posts, and the e-mail communications, would go to show that the comments made by the petitioner were intended to insult the modesty of CW3 & CW5. Apparently, the aforesaid act of the petitioner exhibiting vulgar materials in facebook, was not only with the intention to insult the modesty of CW3 & CW5, but also with the objective that the aforesaid materials shall be seen by the aggrieved persons. Since the above objectionable posts are made in the facebook in public domain, 2025:KER:66452 Crl.M.C No.1983/2025 -:10:- the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he had no intention to expose those posts to the aggrieved persons. The act of the petitioner posting the above denigrating matters related to CW3 & CW5 in public domain in facebook, itself would reveal that it was done with the intention that those posts shall be seen by everybody, including CW3 & CW5. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the offence under Section 509 IPC is clearly attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case.
10. The following are the requirements to be fulfilled for showing the commission of an offence under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
(i)A person shall cause through any means of communication a nuisance of himself to any other person.
(ii)Such nuisance shall be caused by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a messenger.
11. As far as the present case is concerned, the allegation against the petitioner is that he made repeated facebook posts in public domain depicting CW3 and CW5, as persons of immoral character. So also, it is alleged that the aforesaid facebook posts made by the petitioner in public domain contained imputations against CW4, CW6 & 2025:KER:66452 Crl.M.C No.1983/2025 -:11:- CW7 as persons of loose morals, who are indulging in illicit activities. Thus, it is obvious that the petitioner, by using facebook posts in public domain as a means of communication, caused nuisance of himself to the above witnesses by repeated messages being posted in facebook with the intention that, it shall be seen by the aforesaid witnesses and others. The aforesaid alleged acts of the petitioner would prima facie constitute the requirements of Section 120(o) of the K.P. Act. Therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the challenge against the applicability of Section 120(o) of the K.P. Act in connection with the alleged criminal acts attributed against the petitioner.
12. As a conclusion to the aforesaid discussions, I find that the offences under Sections 294(b), 499, 500 & 354(D) IPC incorporated in the final report are liable to be quashed, since those offences are not brought out from the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the prosecution shall continue as against the petitioner in connection with the commission of offences under Section 509 IPC and Section 120(o) of the K.P. Act.
In the result, the petition stands allowed in part as follows:
2025:KER:66452 Crl.M.C No.1983/2025 -:12:-
(i)The offences under Sections 294(b), 499, 500 & 354(D) IPC incorporated in the final report filed by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Idukki, in Crime No.3/2022, are hereby quashed.
(ii)It is made clear that there is absolutely no legal impediment for the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, to proceed against the petitioner in respect of the offences under Section 509 IPC and Section 120(o) of the K.P. Act incorporated in the aforesaid final report.
(iii) It is further made clear that nothing in this order would preclude the aggrieved persons from proceeding against the petitioner by instituting a private complaint, or a suit for realisation of damages, in connection with the commission of offences under Sections 499 & 500 IPC.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST
2025:KER:66452
Crl.M.C No.1983/2025
-:13:-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FI
STATEMENT DATED 18.11.2022 IN CRIME NO.
03/2022 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,
IDUKKI
ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
22.02.2023 IN CRIME NO. 03/2022 OF CYBER
CRIME POLICE STATION, IDUKKI NOW PENDING AS
CC 103/2023 OF COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE THODUPUZHA
ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
EMBASSY OF INDIA AT VIENNA DATED 07.09.2011
ANNEXURE D A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
THEN PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER
ANNEXURE E A TRUE COPY OF THE FLIGHT TICKET RECEIPT OF
THE PETITIONER SHOWING ARRIVAL AND
DEPARTURE
ANNEXURE F A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2024
IN CRL.MC 5585/2024
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R6 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHORT OF THE
MESSAGES IN FACEBOOK POST DATED 19.11.2022
ANNEXURE R6 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.11.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE IDUKKI