Kerala High Court
Magistrate Court-I vs By Adv.Sri.Shajin S.Hameed on 20 January, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 6123 of 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1506/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-I,KOTTARAKKARA
CRIME NO. 89/2012 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/A2
SANGEETHA, AGED 29
W/O.ANEESH KUMAR,
K.S.BHAVAN, NEAR PETROL PUMP UDIYANKULANGARA,
KOLLAYIL VILLAGE, AMARAVILA CHERI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & CW1:
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. SREELEKHA
D/O.VALSALA,
SREEBHAVANAM, NEAR NEDIYATH DEVI TEMPLE,
KARAKKAD DESOM, MULANKUZHA VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA DISRICT, PIN: 689 505.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ
R2 BY ADV. SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
R1 BY ADV.B.JAYASURYA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-07-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6123 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.89/2012 OF
KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION
B PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20/1/2013
SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTTARAKKARA BEFORE THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOTTARAKKARA.
C CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.89//2012
OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
NIL
TRUE COPY
SKS P.A TO JUDGE
A.M.BABU, J.
..........................................
Crl M.C No. 6123 of 2016
...........................................
Dated 12th day of July, 2018
ORDER
Petitioner is the second accused in CC 1506/2014. That is a case on the file of the judicial magistrate-I, first class, Kottarakkara. The petitioner seeks to quash the criminal prosecution against her. The relief is sought under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.
2. Annex-A is the copy of the FIR. It was registered alleging offences punishable under Sec. 420 of IPC, Sec.119(b) of the Kerala Police Act and Sec.84 C of the Information Technologies Act, 2000. Annex-C is the charge- sheet. It was filed alleging commission of offences punishable under Secs 420 of IPC and 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act.
3. Heard Sri.Shajin S.Hameed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rejit George, the learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri.B.Jayasurya, the learned public prosecutor.
2
4. Of the three offences shown in the FIR, one was deleted and the other two were retained at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. The petitioner and her husband, who is the first accused, are charged under Sec.420 of IPC and Sec.119(b) of the Kerala Police Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no evidence whatsoever has been collected by the investigating officer against the petitioner. It is also submitted that even the allegations against the petitioner do not disclose any crime committed by her The submissions of the learned counsel cannot be brushed aside.
5. I have perused the FIR and charge-sheet. The prosecution can have no case that an offence under Sec.119
(b) of the Kerala Police Act was committed by the petitioner. Taking photographs or recording videos or propagating them at any place in a manner affecting the reasonable privacy of a woman is a punishable offence under Sec.119 (b) of the Kerala Police Act. Every allegation of the prosecution so far as the offence under Sec.119 (b) is concerned is against the 3 first accused. There is no allegation that the petitioner, who is the second accused and the wife of the first accused, had any role of hers in taking the photograph of the first informant or in the process of propagating the photograph at any place in a manner affecting the reasonable privacy of that woman. There was no justification in charging the petitioner under Sec.119(b) of the Kerala Police Act.
6. What remains is Sec.420 of IPC. In order to attract Sec.420 IPC, there must be cheating coupled with delivery of property. What the first informant narrates in the FI statement is that the petitioner and the first accused demanded money for not misusing the photograph by morphing and posting on the internet. Sec.420 of IPC is not attracted with the aforesaid allegations against the petitioner. It is not known how could the investigating officer charge the petitioner under Sec.420 of IPC.
7. There are a few allegations of intimidation. I am not considering whether Sec.506 of IPC is attracted or not. I need only to state that no allegation of intimidation is made 4 against the petitioner.
8. Having read the prosecution papers, particularly the FI statement, and having considered the prosecution case, I am convinced that the prosecution of the petitioner would certainly amount to persecution. That cannot be permitted.
9. The Crl M.C is allowed. Annex-C final report to the extent it relates to the petitioner and all proceedings in CC 1506/2014 on the file of the judicial magistrate-I, first class,Kottarakkara against the petitioner stand quashed. In other words, the impugned criminal prosecution against the petitioner is quashed. It is made clear that this order will no way affect the prosecution of the first accused.
sd/-
A.M.BABU Judge sks/12.7.2018 5