## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA,**
## **1944**
## **CRL.MC NO. 6042 OF 2018**
**CRIME NO.0014/2016 OF Malappuram Police Station, Malappuram CC 152/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS MALAPPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED:**
H.VINCENT,AGED 49 YEARS, S/O HARRIS (LATE), WORKING AS REVENUE INSPECTOR (LA) GENERAL, MALAPPURAM, RESIDING AT DIVINE HOUSE, PULLIKKATTU PARAMBA,PERIMBALAM P.O MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676509
BY ADVS.SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SMT.N.P.ASHA
## **RESPONDENTS:**
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM682031. 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM - 676505. 3 V.P. SULABHAKUMAR,DISTRICT INFORMATION OFFICER, CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD – 678001.
SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN, SR. PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.6042/2018
## -:2:-
## **O R D E R**
Dated this the 7[th] day of December, 2022
This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.152/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram (for short 'the court below').
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 3[rd] respondent is the defacto complainant. The offences alleged are punishable under sections 353 and 509 of IPC.
3. The petitioner was working as Revenue Inspector and the 3[rd] respondent was working as Tahsildar-cum-District Information Officer in the same office during the period of the incident. The prosecution case in short is that on 22/12/2015 at about 3.30 p.m, the petitioner came to the office of the 3[rd] respondent, claimed to be leader of the Service Association viz., Joint Council of State Service Organization, spoke very loudly and rudely towards her blaming her action against a typist named K.Satheesh as arbitrary, used obscene words against her with intent to insult her modesty and obstructed her official duty. The
Crl.M.C.No.6042/2018
-:3:-
crime was registered on the basis of Annexure A2 complaint given by the 3[rd] respondent to the District Collector, Malappuram. The District Collector forwarded the said complaint to the police and crime was registered. Annexure A3 complaint was also given by the 3[rd] respondent to the Chairperson, Local Level Committee against Sexual Harassment of Women Employees, Malappuram.
4. I have heard Sri.Dheerendrakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri.C.N. Prabhakaran. Even though notice has been served to the 3[rd] respondent, there is no appearance.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Dheerendrakrishnan submitted that even if the entire allegations in the FIS together with the materials collected during investigation are believed in toto, no offence under sections 353 or 509 if IPC are made out. Per contra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri.Prabhakaran submitted that the FIS as well as the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C discloses ingredients of sections 353 and 509 of IPC and if a
Crl.M.C.No.6042/2018
-:4:-
_prima facie_ is made out, the jurisdiction vested with this court under section 482 cannot be invoked.
6. The allegation of the 3[rd] respondent in Annexure A2 FIS is that the petitioner came to her office on the date and time of the incident, shouted against her and spoke very loudly and rudely. It is further alleged that the petitioner used abusive words against her. It is also alleged that on account of the above mentioned act of the petitioner, her official duty was obstructed for half an hour. The relevant portion of the statement given by the 3[rd] respondent in Annexure A2 is reproduced here. “വവിൻസസെനന്റ് കളക്ടററേറവിസലെ തസന്നെ ശശ.ചന്ദ്രനുസമമൊത്തു ഇന്െ (ഡവിസെസംബർ 22) 3.30 നു റശേഷസം എസന്നെ കമൊണമൊൻ ഓഫശസെവിൽ വന്നെവിരുന. തുടർന്െ വളസര ഉച്ചതവിലസം റദേഷഷ്യറതമൊസടയസം സെസംസെമൊരവിക് യസം ഞമൊൻ പറേയമൊത കമൊരഷ്യങ്ങൾ ആറരമൊപവിക് യസം സചയ. xxx വശടവിൽ സെസംസെമൊരവിക്കുന്നെതു റപമൊസലെ യൂണവിയൻ റനേതമൊവവിറനേമൊടന്റ് സെസംസെമൊരവിക്കരുസതനസം മററടത്തു റപമൊയവി പറേഞമൊൽ . xxxx മതവിസയന്നെ രശതവിയവിലള്ള സെസംസെമൊരസം റവസണ്ടെനസം ഭശഷണവിസപ്പെടുതവി ഫഫനേമൊൻസെന്റ് ഇൻസസ്പെക്ടറേവിസംഗന്റ് സെന്റ് കകമൊഡന്റ് ഈ ഓഫശസെവിൽ നേടതവിയ
Crl.M.C.No.6042/2018
-:5:-
പരവിറശേമൊധനേക്കന്റ് അടവിയനവിരമമൊയവി മറുപടവി എഴുതുകയമൊയവിരുന്നെ എസന റജമൊലെവി തടസെസപ്പെടുതവി" Annexure A17 is the final report. In the 161 statement of the 3[rd] respondent, nothing more was stated. No other witnesses shown in the final report stated anything about the incident. Going by the final report, none of them witnessed the incident. Thus, the statement given by the 3[rd] respondent in Annexure A2 FI statement is the only allegation available on record against the petitioner. Now let me see whether those allegations are sufficient to attract the offence under section 353 and 509 of IPC.
7. Section 353 of IPC reads as follows:
_**“353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty** .—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”_
A reading of Section 353 would show that assault or use of
Crl.M.C.No.6042/2018
## -:6:-
criminal force is a pre-requisite to attract the said offence. Section 349 defines “force”, S.350 defines “criminal force”, and S.351 defines “assault”. Physical act either causing motion or cessation of motion of a person is required to attract the offence of criminal force. Similarly, any gesture or preparation by a person causing apprehension to the person present that he was about to use criminal force to that person is required to attract the offence of assault. If offence of either criminal force or assault is not attracted, the offence under section 353 also is not attracted. Here, the only allegation is that the petitioner shouted at the 3[rd] respondent and by the act of the petitioner, the official duty of the 3[rd] respondent was obstructed for a short while. Mere shouting or using loud words against a public servant in a Government office or mere cessation of work by a public servant on account of the act of the accused will not attract Section 353 of IPC when there is no allegation of use of criminal force or assault. Hence, I am of the view that section 353 of IPC is not attracted.
8. Section 509 of IPC reads as follows:
Crl.M.C.No.6042/2018
## -:7:-
## _“_ _**Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman** ._
_Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine”._
9. For a prosecution under section 509 of IPC, there must be a definite allegation of insult to the modesty of woman or intrusion into the privacy of a woman. Mere insult or false allegation will not attract the offence under section 509 of IPC. The subject of insult for a prosecution under Section 509 of IPC must be the modesty of the woman and not the woman as such. (See _**Basheer v. State of Kerala**_ (2014 KHC 5026)). What was stated by the 3[rd] respondent has been extracted by me in the paragraph No.6. There is absolutely nothing to suggest in the said statement that there was any definite allegation of insult to the modesty of the woman. The exact word allegedly used by the petitioner has not been mentioned in Annexure A2. The only allegation is that the petitioner said “മററടത്തു റപമൊയവി പറേഞമൊൽ മതവിസയന്നെ രശതവിയവിലള്ള സെസംസെമൊരസം റവസണ്ടെനസം ഭശഷണവിസപ്പെടുതവി." The said
Crl.M.C.No.6042/2018
-:8:-
statement is hardly sufficient to insult the modesty of a woman. Hence, Section 509 of IPC is also not attracted.
In the light of the above findings, no purpose will be served in proceeding further with the case. Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.C.No.152/2016 on the file of the court below is quashed. Crl.M.C is allowed.
Sd/- **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH**
**JUDGE**
kp
Crl.M.C.No.6042/2018
## -:9:-
## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6042/2018**
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
|ANNEXURE A1|A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME|
|---|---|
||NO.0014/2016 DATED 5/1/2016.|
|ANNEXURE A2|A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED|
||BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT|
||COLLECTOR AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED|
||22.12.2015.|
|ANNEXURE A3|A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED|
||BY THE DISTRICT INFORMATION OFFICER,|
||MALAPPURAM TO THE CHAIRPERSON, LOCAL|
||LEVEL COMMITTEE AGAINST SEXUAL|
||HARASSMENT OF WOMEN EMPLOYEES,|
||MALAPPURAM DATED 23.12.2016.|
|ANNEXURE A4|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B/736/15|
||DATED 23.12.2015 OF LOCAL LEVEL|
||COMMITTEE AND DISTRICT SOCIAL JUSTICE|
||OFFICER.|
|ANNEXURE A5|A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY|
||THE PETITIONER DATED 25.1.2016.|
|ANNEXURE A6|A TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER A5-|
||64549/2015 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT|
||COLLECTOR TO THE PETITIONER DATED|
||3.2.2016.|
|ANNEXURE A7|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE|
||HONOURABLE SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI IN|
||CRIMINAL M.C.NO.25/2016 DATED 14.1.2016.|
|ANNEXURE A8(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET ISSUED BY|
||THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 11.12.2015.|
## Crl.M.C.No.6042/2018
## -:10:-
|ANNEXURE|A8(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO ISSUED BY|
|---|---|---|
|||THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 11.12.15.|
|ANNEXURE|A9|A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED|
|||30.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR|
|||(GENERAL).|
|ANNEXURE|A10|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER LRD 52646|
|||DATED 3.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE LAND|
|||REVENUE COMMISSIONER.|
|ANNEXURE|11|A TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER|
|||FOR THE MONTH DECEMBER 2015.|
|ANNEXURE|12|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY|
|||SATHEESH K BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR|
|||DATED 1.1.2016.|
|ANNEXURE|13|A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY|
|||PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, REVENUE|
|||DEPARTMENT DATED 8.2.2016.|
|ANNEXURE|A14|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER|
|||NO.2599/2016/REV ISSUED BY THE JOINT|
|||SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT DATED|
|||22.6.2016.|
|ANNEXURE|A15|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.52646/15|
|||ISSUED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, LAND|
|||REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE DATED 5.7.2016.|
|ANNEXURE|A16|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.5-64549/2015|
|||ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,|
|||MALAPPURAM DATED 17.3.2017.|
|ANNEXURE|A17|A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME|
|||NO.0014/2016 DATED 20.1.2016.|
