Crl.MC.No. 6216 of 2014

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1939** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6216 of 2014** **IN CC No.1503/2014 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT ,CHAVAKKAD** **CRIME NO. 100/2014 OF Guruvayur Police Station.** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **C.L.ANTO AGED 59 YEARS S/O.LATE LAZAR, CHALAKKAL HOUSE, NEAR I.Q.ROAD, CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE&COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **PP SMT.MAYA M.N** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.03.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 6216 of 2014 2** ## **MARY JOSEPH, J.** ------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 6216 of 2014 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of March, 2018 **O R D E R** The petitioner is the sole accused in the proceedings on hand. He seeks to quash Annexure D chargesheet and all further proceedings initiated on its basis in C.C.No.1503/2014 taken on file by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad (for short 'the court below'). The chargesheet was laid after concluding investigation in crime No.100/2014 of Guruvayur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) IPC and Section 117(e) Kerala Police Act, 2010. 2. The facts of the case in brief are to the following effect:The mother of the petitioner, one Sicily had filed a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayur against eight persons alleging that they have cheated her by misrepresentation and thereby, she was forced to part with her property to them. It is alleged that the accused made the mother of the petitioner to execute a sale deed by misrepresenting that the same was for mortgage of property for the purpose of availing loan. The complaint was lodged by the mother of **Crl.MC.No. 6216 of 2014 3** the petitioner on 06.08.2013 before the Guruvayur Police, the true copy of which is appended to the proceedings on hand as Annexure A. The Police refused to take action against the accused. When action was being unnecessarily delayed by the Guruvayur Police, the petitioner went to the Police Station to enquire about the status of the same. The Sub Inspector of Police of Guruvayur Police Station informed the petitioner that he would decide whether to register a case or not on the basis of the complaint lodged by his mother and the petitioner has no business in the Police Station. Thereafter, the petitioner informed the Police that he would complain before the higher authorities about the inaction. The petitioner apprehended that the inaction on the part of the Police was due to their collusion with the accused. On 20.01.2014 at 5.40 p.m., while a Constable was on duty, he made a call to the Police Station and enquired about the status of the case. A Constable who had attended his telephone, made a complaint to the S.I. of Police Guruvayur Police Station alleging that he had abused him with obscene words and intimidated him. Accordingly, Crime No.100/2014 was registered at Guruvayur Police Station. True copy of the complaint abovementioned and the FIR registered on its basis are appended to proceedings on hand **Crl.MC.No. 6216 of 2014 4** respectively as Annexure B and Annexure C. Investigation was held based on the allegations in Annexure C and a final report was laid, true copy of which is appended to proceedings on hand as Annexure D. The court below had taken cognizance on Annexure D and received it on file as CC No.1503/14. On process being served, the petitioner appeared in the case and was released on bail on execution of bond on his own. At that juncture, the petitioner has approached this Court in the proceedings on hand seeking to quash Annexure C complaint and all proceedings initiated in C.C.No. 1503/2014, pending on the files of the court below. 3. Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioner. According to him, the offences alleged against the petitioner are those punishable under Sections 294(b),506(i) I.P.C. and Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act. The learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to the allegations raised in Annexure B complaint, which formed the basis for registration of Annexure C Crime No.100/14, which are extracted hereunder : “സസിസസിലസിയുടടെ പരരാതസി നനീടയരാടക്കെ എനരാ ടചെയ്തടതനന വളടര കർക്കെശ സസ്വരതസിൽ ചചെരാദസിച. ആയതന എനസിക്കെന ശരസിക്കെന മനസസിലരാകരാതതന കരാരണണം ഞരാൻ ഒന്നു കൂടടെ ചചെരാദസിച് പരാൾ **Crl.MC.No. 6216 of 2014** **5** ഏചതരാ ഒരു ചജരാണസിയരാടണനന ഉച്ചതസിൽ പറയുകയുണം നനീടയരാടക്കെ അവസിടടെ ഇരസിക്കുനതന "കകക്കൂലസി വരാങരാൻ അടല്ലെടെരാ" ടയനന നസിടന്റെടയരാടക്കെ പണസി ഞരാൻ ടതറസിപസിക്കുണം എടന പുലയരാടെസിചമരാടനടയന്നുണം നസിനക്കെന അറസിയസിടല്ലെങസിൽ നസിടനടയരാടക്കെ അറസിയസിച്ചസിചട്ടേ ബരാക്കെസി കരാരര്യമുള്ളൂ എന്നുണം പറഞന എടന ഭനീഷണസിടപടുതസിയസിട്ടുള്ളതരാണന.” According to the counsel, the allegations raised as above will not attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC, the ingredients of which are three fold in nature. Firstly, the words used must have the impact of creating annoyance to the person to whom those were addressed. Secondly, the words must have been uttered in or near any public place. Thirdly the words uttered must have been obscene in nature. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the above ingredients are not attracted from the allegations in Annexure B complaint extracted hereinabove. The learned counsel has relied on **P.T.Chacko** v. **Ninan** [1967 KLT 799] to rest his contention that the words allegedly uttered by the petitioner have no impact of obscenity. In the case cited supra the test of obscenity has been described. The test in the opinion of the learned Single Judge was whether the tendency of the words alleged as obscene is to deprave and corrupt those, whose minds are open to such immoral **Crl.MC.No. 6216 of 2014 6** influences. Therefore, in order to attract obscenity, the words uttered must have a tendency to deprave and corrupt the persons who are addressed with such immoral influences. In the case on hand, the words uttered are already referred to hereinabove. The words have no tendency to deprave or corrupt the mind of the Police Constable so as to create an immoral influence upon him. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the allegations extracted above are unlikely to attract the offence under Section 294(b) IPC. For the reason no basis was there for the Guruvayur Police to register Annexure C and chargesheet the petitioner by filing Annexure D for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC. 4. Yet another offence for registration of Crime No.100/2014 was Section 506(i) of I.P.C. For the said offence to be attracted, the complaint must have allegations therein that the accused had caused criminal intimidation, defined under Section 503 IPC which is extracted hereinbelow. “ _503. Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person to do ny act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the_ **Crl.MC.No. 6216 of 2014** **7** _execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation._ _Explanation.-- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.”_ So in order to constitute an offence under Section 503 IPC, there must be a threat addressed to a person intended to have serious impact upon him. A glance at Annexure C complaint would reveal that the crux of the allegations therein is contained in the portion extracted hereinabove. It is relevant to note from the extracted portion that an element of threat is involved. But, the threat advanced is not that much serious. In order to be serious, threat must have been addressed by a person, who is having a dominant power over the person to whom the threat was extended. Here the threat was allegedly extended by a lay man to a Police Officer, who is in a dominant position than the other. For the reason itself, the threat allegedly extended cannot be said to have any serious impact on the recipient thereof. In order to attract the offence of criminal intimidation, the ingredient secondly essential was that the person to whom threat was made must have been restrained from exercising a lawful duty which he was bound to do or else he must have been compelled to exercise a duty which he was not legally bound to do. In the case on hand, the words alleged as uttered with intend to **Crl.MC.No. 6216 of 2014 8** criminally intimidate the complainant are contained in the portion ## extracted hereunder : “.........നനീടയരാടക്കെ അവസിടടെ ഇരസിക്കുനതന "കകക്കൂലസി വരാങരാൻ അടല്ലെടെരാ" ടയനന നസിടന്റെടയരാടക്കെ പണസി ഞരാൻ ടതറസിപസിക്കുണം പുലയരാടെസിചമരാടനടയന്നുണം എടന നസിനക്കെന അറസിയസിടല്ലെങസിൽ നസിടനടയരാടക്കെ അറസിയസിച്ചസിചട്ടേ ബരാക്കെസി കരാരര്യമുള്ളൂ എന്നുണം പറഞന എടന ഭനീഷണസിടപടുതസിയസിട്ടുള്ളതരാണന.” 6. Though an element of threat is present in the words extracted above, those do not have the impact of restraining the man addressed from doing a lawful duty or compelling him from performing something, which he is not legally bound to do. In view of the discussion above, the petitioner is not liable to be chargesheeted for offence under Section 506(i) IPC. For the reason, there is no basis for registration of crime under Section 506(i) IPC and laying a final report chargesheeting the petitioner for the said offence. The court below ought not to have taken cognizance of the case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 506(i) IPC. 8. The third offence incorporated in crime No.100/14 is Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2010. Section 117(e) is apposite to be reproduced hereunder:- _“_ _**117. Penalty for interfering in the functions of the police.--**_ **Crl.MC.No. 6216 of 2014 9** _Whoever.--_ _(a) xxxxxxxxxx_ _(b) xxxxxxxxxx_ _(c) xxxxxxxx_ _(d) xxxxxxxxxxx_ _(e) threatens, obstructs or assaults a Police Officer with the manifest intention of preventing such officer from discharging any of his duties,_ _shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with find or with both._ _**”**_ In order to attract the offence under Section 117(e) of Kerala Police Act, there must be threat, obstruction or assault to a Police Officer with the manifest intention of preventing such officer from discharging any of his duties as such officer. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner herein has threatened the Police Officer and thereby prevented him from discharging his official duties. What kind of official duty, the complainant was prevented from exercising is not discerned from the allegations in Annexure B. It it is also not discerned from the allegation, the kind of action, which he was compelled to do out of his legal duty. It appears that the investigation was not conducted by the Guruvayur Police in its proper perceptive and the court below has taken cognizance of Annexure D final report without applying its mind to the allegations of the prosecution. Had mind been applied properly, CC No.1503/14 would not have taken on its file. For the foregoing reasons, the proceedings on hand is liable to **Crl.MC.No. 6216 of 2014 10** succeed and Annexure D chargesheet and proceedings initiated pursuant to CC No.1503/14, taken on its file based on that by the court below are liable to be quashed forthwith. In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure D final report and CC No.1503/14 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad are quashed forthwith. **Sd/-** **MARY JOSEPH** **JUDGE** MBS/ **Crl.MC.No. 6216 of 2014** **11** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYUR. ANNEXURE B ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINT BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYUR. ANNEXURE C ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.100/2014. ANNEXURE D ANNEXURE D : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE GURUVAYUR POLICE BEFORE THE LEARNED JFCM, CHAVAKKAD.**