Kerala High Court
Usha K vs State Of Kerala on 28 April, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2014/13TH JYAISHTA, 1936
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2343 of 2013 ()
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 2637/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S
COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
----------------------------------------------------
USHA K., AGED 32 YEARS,
W/O.V.C.PRASANTH, BINDU BHAVAN, PERAVOOR.P.O.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH
SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. LATHEEF,
S/O.MOIDEEN, PUTHIYAPURA, THONDIYIL-670673.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LILLY LESLIE
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2343 of 2013 ()
-------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
A1 COPY OF THE F.I.R.
A2 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.04.2012.
A3 COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE DySP.
A4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA
DATED 01.05.2012.
A5 SERIES COPY OF THE STATEMENT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES :
NIL
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge
DSV/11/06
P. UBAID, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.NO. 2343 of 2013
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2014
O R D E R
The revision petitioner herein is the daughter-in-law of a stamp vendor, by name Gopinathan Nair. On a complaint against her alleging offences punishable under Sections 295A, 298, 500, 504 and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuthuparamba took cognizance under Sections 298 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order of cognizance dated 23.10.2013 is under challenge in this revision.
2. The case of the 2nd respondent, who preferred complaint in the court below, is that when he approached the revision petitioner in connection with some dispute regarding the purchase of stamp paper, there was an issue and exchange of words between them. In the said incident, Crl.R.P.NO. 2343 of 2013 2 she abused him and also made some allegations of illicit connection with a lady.
3. The learned Magistrate recorded statements of the complainant and his witnesses during the enquiry as prescribed under the law. The case of the revision petitioner is that there is absolutely nothing in the complaint or in the statements to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 298 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. According to her, cognizance is illegal because there is no essential ingredient of any of the offences in the complaint or the statements.
4. I heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent in the court below, and also the statements given by him and his witnesses.
5. Of course on a perusal of the materials, I find that there is no sufficient and satisfactory materials to constitute Crl.R.P.NO. 2343 of 2013 3 the offence punishable under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code. For a prosecution under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code, the words alleged to have been uttered by the accused must be something touching the religious faith of the complainant. Mere abusive word or statement will not by itself constitute the offence under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code. What is made punishable under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code is statements or words or gestures made with the object of wounding the religious feelings of others. Those gestures or words or statements must be something touching the religion or religious faith. In this case, just because the revision petitioner made some abusive words generally, or even against him, which will not have been effect of abusing or questioning his religious faith, the revision petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, I find that the cognizance under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code in Crl.R.P.NO. 2343 of 2013 4 this case is liable to be set aside.
6. However, the complainant and his witnesses have given some prima facie material before the court below to make out the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. I make it clear that it is only a prima facie material. Whether the allegations and imputations made by the revision petitioner will, in fact, defame the 2nd respondent, is a matter to be decided on trial. What is alleged is that the revision petitioner made some statements of illicit connection with a lady. Of course, it is a matter for decision on trial, what connection the 2nd respondent has with the said lady, or in what circumstance or situation such statements were made by the revision petitioner. All these aspects will have to be considered by the trial court to decide whether the offence punishable under Section 500 is, in fact, made out or not. What I find on a perusal of the materials is some prima facie material for Crl.R.P.NO. 2343 of 2013 5 taking cognizance. I find that the cognizance taken by the trial court under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be now disturbed. Let the matter proceed in the trial court, and let the learned Magistrate decide whether necessary elements or ingredients to constitute the offence are there, or whether the revision petitioner was in any manner justified on any ground in making such statements. Accordingly, I find that the cognizance taken by the Court below under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code does not require interference in revision.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. Cognizance taken by the court below against the revision petitioner under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. But the complaint as regards the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code can proceed.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a request for exemption from personal appearance. Of course, Crl.R.P.NO. 2343 of 2013 6 she can very well approach the trial court with such a request. The learned Magistrate will hear both sides, and exemption can be granted, if there is no absolute necessity of presence of the revision petitioner on every posting date.
Sd/-
P. UBAID (JUDGE) DSV/04/06