Kerala High Court
Ani Narayanan vs State Of Kerala on 14 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 22ND ASWINA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1185 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1930/2019 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.366 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PUNALUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:
ANI NARAYANAN,
AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANAN, ASHTAPATHI (H), CHERUVAYKKAL,
SREEKARYAM, P.O. T/C- S- 2025(1),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
SMT.A.SALINI LAL
SHRI.J.M.DEEPAK
SRI.JINU P. BINU
SRI.SAJEEV K.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE&DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 APARNA MOHAN,
AGED 37 YEARS, W/O KANNAN,
KRISHNA KRIPA, PUTHATTU,
EDAMKULAKKAL P.O., ANACHAL,
KOLLAM RURAL, PIN - 691306
BY ADV.
SMT.BINDU O.V., PP
CRL.MC NO. 1185 OF 2025 -2-
2025:KER:76217
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1185 OF 2025 -3-
2025:KER:76217
ORDER
This is the petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 ('BNSS', for short) by the accused in Crime No.1930 of 2019 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam. It is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Punalur as C.C.No.366 of 2020.
2. The prosecution case is that on 19.11.2019 at about 8 p.m. the accused persons 1 and 2 with an intention to abuse the defacto complainant and to insult her modesty abused her in filthy language over mobile phones.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations in charge will not constitute the offence under Section 294(b) and 509 IPC. According to the learned counsel, the second accused was already acquitted by the learned Magistrate as per judgment dated 19.04.2025. The learned counsel has passed over a copy of the above judgment for perusal. CRL.MC NO. 1185 OF 2025 -4-
2025:KER:76217 From the above judgment, it can be seen that the second accused was acquitted and the case against the first petitioner was refiled as C.C.No.353 of 2025.
4. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. On a perusal of the F.I.Statement and the Final Report it can be seen that though the defacto complainant alleges that the accused abused her over phone, the words allegedly used for abusing her were not disclosed in her statement. Similarly, the words allegedly used for insulting her modesty were also not disclosed in her statement.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of a Single Bench of this Court in Basheer Vs. State of Kerala (2014 KHC 5026) would argue that mere insult or false allegation does not amount to offence punishable under Section 509 IPC. In paragraph No.3 of the above decision, the learned Single Judge held as follows:
".....3. The learned Magistrate, and also the CRL.MC NO. 1185 OF 2025 -5- 2025:KER:76217 learned Sessions Judge erred in law to find that this prosecution can proceed under Section 509 IPC. Mere insult will not attract Section 509 IPC. For a prosecution under Section 509 IPC there must be a definite allegation of insult to the modesty of woman or intrusion into the privacy of woman. Thus the allegation must involve modesty of woman or privacy of woman. Mere insult or false allegation will not attract a prosecution under Section 509 IPC. In Annexure A2 complaint the 2nd respondent does not have a case that the petitioners herein had insulted her modesty as a woman, or that they had intruded into her privacy in any manner. If at all the petitioners had spread or published any insulting and defamatory matters, she can initiate prosecution for defamation under Section 500 IPC, provided, the allegations would come under the definition of defamation under Section 499 IPC. Any way mere insult or insulting words, or abuse will not attract a prosecution under Section 509 IPC. In this case there is absolutely nothing in the complaint preferred by the 2 nd respondent, or in the final report submitted by the police to indicate that the petitioners had in any manner insulted her modesty or intruded into her privacy. Merely insulting a woman is different from insulting the modesty of woman. The subject of insult for a prosecution under Section 509 IPC must be the CRL.MC NO. 1185 OF 2025 -6- 2025:KER:76217 modesty of woman and not the woman as such. When there is nothing to make out the essential elements of the offence under Section 509 IPC, the prosecution against the petitioners cannot proceed under the law."
Since in the statement given by the defacto complainant, the words allegedly used by the petitioner was not disclosed, the offence under Section 294(b) and 509 IPC are not attracted. In the above circumstances, since the present prosecution is only an abuse of the judicial process, the Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed.
In the result, the criminal M.C. is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Punalur in C.C.No.366 of 2020 is quashed.
Sd/-
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE vv CRL.MC NO. 1185 OF 2025 -7- 2025:KER:76217 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1185/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R ALONG WITH THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 1930/2019 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1930/2019 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION