Kerala High Court
Advocate Ashraf Sabhan vs Unknown on 11 April, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/4TH CHAITHRA 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1844 of 2008 ( )
----------------------------
ST.929/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KODUNGALLUR
(NOW TRANSFERRED TO JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
AND NUMBERED AS CC NO.1095/2008)
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
-------------------------------------
ADVOCATE ASHRAF SABHAN,S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN,
KUNNUMMMAL HOUSE, P.O.MATHILAKAM,
PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. JOSHY,S/O.PAPPU,
MATHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF KERLA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. ROSE MICHAEL
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-03-2013, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO.1844/2008
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CMP NO.2820/2008 DATED 11.4.2008 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
//TRUE COPY//
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.1844 of 2008
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2013.
ORDER
Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings in S.T.No.929 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungalloor. Petitioner is charged with offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC").
2. Gist of allegations against the petitioner is the following: Petitioner is a practicing lawyer. On 11.04.2008 at about 10 a.m. petitioner enquired with the complainant, a peon, as to where a private complaint could be filed. The complainant informed the petitioner that he could get the information from the office. Infuriated by this attitude of the complainant, petitioner abused him by using epithets like "rascal", "useless", etc. It is also alleged that the petitioner intimidated him with serious consequences. Hence he filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner.
3. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Perused the records.
4. In order to attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC the following facts are to be avered and proved: To the annoyance of others the accused must have sang, recited or uttered any obscene song, ballad or words in or near any public place. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision rendered in Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLD Crl.MC No.1844/2008 2
339) wherein an identical case was considered by a learned Judge of this Court and stated the law in the following words:
"The word "rascal" may at best amount to "scoundrel, rogue or scamp" very often used jokingly or paradoxically, the said word is not known to have any tinge of obscenity. In order to satisfy the test of obscenity, the words uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers. The word "rascal" does not have the tendency of depraving or corrupting those minds which are open to the prurient of lascivious influences."
5. Similarly the usage of term "useless" also cannot invoke impure thoughts in the mind of a hearer.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Preethimon v. State of Kerala (2008 (2) KLT 666) to contend a proposition that a vague or general statement in the FIR that the accused showered obscene words is not enough to constitute an offence under Section 294(b). The accused must sing, recite or utter any obscene song, ballad or words in or near any public place. The question is whether the words allegedly uttered by the accused would constitute obscene words. Reliance was placed therein on the decisions in P.T.Chacko v. Nainan Chacko (1967 KLT 799) and Chacko George v. State of Kerala (1968 KLT 219). As mentioned earlier, the words alleged to have been used in this case do not constitute obscene words which is punishable under Section 294(b) IPC. Regarding criminal intimidation, there is Crl.MC No.1844/2008 3 no specific averment, except a single statement to that effect. Learned counsel for petitioner is right in contending that there is no legal basis for maintaining the complaint. Hence it is liable to be quashed.
7. It is submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has transferred the case to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda and it is pending as C.C.No.1095 of 2008.
In the result, petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.1095 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda are quashed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks