Kerala High Court
Sushma Sharma vs State Of Kerala Represented By Public ... on 5 August, 2025
2025:KER:57825
Crl.R.P.No.1256/2024
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TH
TUESDAY, THE 5 DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1256 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1029/2017 OF HARBOUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2024 IN CMP NO.2509 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOCHI
REVISION PETITIONER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
SUSHMA SHARMA,
AGED 30 YEARS,
W/O. SHALABH SHARMA 362,
VEENA NAGAR, H.M. SEC-6,
UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,
PIN - 313002
BY ADVS.SMT.E.V.MOLY
SHRI.JIBU P THOMAS
SHRI.RANJAN BABU JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA AND ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, COCHIN,
PIN - 682031
2 SHUBHANGIL PATTI
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O. VITHAL RAO PATTIL,
ROOM NO.02, MANGAL VALLEY,
NEAR AGARWAL COLLEGE,
ADHAR WADI, KALYAN WEST,
MUMABI, MAHARASHTRA,
PIN - 421301
BY ADVS.SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
SHRI.MRINAL CHAND M.
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2025, THE COURT ON 05.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57825
Crl.R.P.No.1256/2024
-:2:-
ORDER
The order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi, in CMP No.2509/2023 in C.C.No.822/2020 discharging the accused in the said case, is under challenge in this criminal revision petition filed at the instance of the de facto complainant. The aforesaid case relates to the commission of offences under Sections 506 & 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'), and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (in short, 'IT Act').
2. The prosecution case was that the accused uploaded images of the victim/de facto complainant on Facebook with obscene comments and threats. It was further alleged that the accused had sent the said messages to the brother and the husband of the victim/de facto complainant. The motive for the commission of offence is said to be the enmity nurtured by the accused due to the refusal on the part of the husband of the de facto complainant to accept her marriage proposal. It is stated that before the marriage of the victim/de facto complainant, the accused and the husband of the victim/de facto complainant were Facebook friends, and that the request made by the accused for marriage with the husband of the victim/de facto complainant was declined by him. The case has been registered by Harbour Police Station, 2025:KER:57825 Crl.R.P.No.1256/2024 -:3:- Ernakulam, on the basis of a complaint which the de facto complainant/victim preferred before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kochi City, which was forwarded to the Sub Inspector of Police, Harbour Police Station, for conducting investigation. Originally, the case was registered against the second respondent herein and another person by name Rohan Kapoor. Later on, it was found on investigation that the name Rohan Kapoor was a fake Facebook ID created by the second respondent herein for perpetrating the crime involved in this case. Accordingly, the name of the above person by name Rohan Kapoor was excluded, and the case was charge-sheeted as against the second respondent herein alone, in respect of the offences under Sections 506 & 509 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act.
3. After the appearance of the second respondent before the learned Magistrate, she filed Annexure-A4 petition for discharge, claiming that even if the entire allegations and records relied on by the prosecution are accepted as true and correct, it will not constitute any of the offences alleged against her.
4. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate found that the allegation of the petitioner herein about the reference made by the second respondent in the Facebook post that she is a prostitute, will not constitute the offence under Section 509 IPC. It was further observed in 2025:KER:57825 Crl.R.P.No.1256/2024 -:4:- the aforesaid order that the messages involved were personal communications and were never published in a manner so that it could have been seen by the victim. Another reason stated by the learned Magistrate for allowing the discharge petition is that the screenshots involved in the case were produced without any scientific examination, and hence it could not be accepted in evidence.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. The offence under Section 509 IPC is attracted if a person, with the intention to insult the modesty of any woman, makes any gesture or exhibits any object intending that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman. It could be seen from the records forming part of the final report in this case that, among the screenshots of the messages which the second respondent had uploaded in Facebook, one message is with the photo of the victim/de facto complainant containing the footnote in Hindi as to how many abortions she had already done. Another screenshot with the photograph of the victim/de facto complainant contains the comment that she would leave behind the porn workers of the South. In yet another screenshot, the second respondent is seen to have made the comment as to why the petitioner herein is still 2025:KER:57825 Crl.R.P.No.1256/2024 -:5:- preferring to get fucked by such an asshole like her husband. There are several other screenshots also relied on by the Investigating Agency, which would go to show that the second respondent herein had uploaded messages on Facebook depicting the picture of the victim/de facto complainant with comments which would insult her modesty. It is true that the aforesaid messages are uploaded with the fake name Rohan Kapoor. However, it could be seen from the final report filed by the Investigating Agency that the Police had traced the IP address and found that the aforesaid messages were sent by the second respondent herein. The question whether the evidence garnered by the investigating agency in the above regard was sufficient for a conviction in the offences alleged, is not a matter to be looked into by the learned Magistrate at the stage of framing of charges. As far as the present case is concerned, the aforesaid materials garnered by the Investigating Agency would clearly bring home the offence under Section 509 IPC attributed against the second respondent herein. That being so, the learned Magistrate went wrong in going into the question as to whether the electronic evidence mobilised by the Investigating Agency were sufficient for a conviction of the second respondent for the offences alleged against her.
7. As regards the offence under Section 506 IPC, it is seen that in one of the messages uploaded by the second respondent, there is the 2025:KER:57825 Crl.R.P.No.1256/2024 -:6:- veiled threat that the family of the petitioner will be suffering beyond imagination. Going by the definition of criminal intimidation under Section 503 of IPC, a person who threatened another with injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with the intent to cause alarm to that person, could be said to have committed the offence of criminal intimidation. Thus, the finding of the learned Magistrate that the offence under Section 506 IPC is also not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case, is apparently erroneous.
8. As regards the offence under the provisions of IT Act, it is to be noted that the records relied on by the Investigating Agency, as well as the allegations levelled in the final report, would clearly make out an offence under Section 67A of the IT Act against the second respondent herein. By uploading messages with photographs of the petitioner herein, containing vulgar sexually explicit comments, the second respondent could be said to have committed the offence under Section 67A of the IT Act. Thus, the finding of the learned Magistrate that the offences under the relevant provisions of the IT Act are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case, is apparently unsustainable.
9. As already stated above, this is not the stage where the Magistrate has to analyse the probative value of the evidence which the 2025:KER:57825 Crl.R.P.No.1256/2024 -:7:- prosecution proposed to adduce in support of the charge levelled against the accused. Thus, it has to be held that the learned Magistrate had out-stepped the parameters to be dealt with while deciding the question as to whether charge is liable to be framed against the accused in connection with the accusations levelled in the final report. That being so, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside, and direction has to be given to the learned Magistrate to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
In the result, the revision petition stands allowed as follows:
(i)Annexure-A5 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi, in CMP No.2509/2023 in C.C.No.822/2020 discharging the accused in the said case, is hereby set aside.
(ii)The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case against the accused/second respondent in respect of the offences under Sections 506 & 509 of the IPC, and Section 67A of the IT Act.
(Sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST
2025:KER:57825
Crl.R.P.No.1256/2024
-:8:-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE CRL.REVISION PETITIONER WITH THE SENIOR
INSPECTOR, FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A1(A) THE TRUE OFFICE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
SUBMITTED BY MR.ANKIT DIXIT, THE BROTHER OF
CRL. REVISION PETITIONER
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.1029/2017 DATED
06.07.2017 REGISTERED AT FORT KOCHI POLICE
STATION
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
31.05.2018 IN CRIME NO.1029/2017 LAID
BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT BY JFCM-1, KOCHI
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
21.12.2023 FILED BY THE ACCUSED
ANNEXURE A5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
5.04.2024 IN CMP.NO.2509/2023 IN
CC.NO.822/2020 OF THE JFCM-1, FORT KOCHI