M.A. Ibrahim v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 28TH ASWINA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 4219 OF 2019** **CRIME NO.493/2016 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 641/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF** ## **FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** M.A.IBRAHIM AGED 61 YEARS S/O. ABDUL KHADER, MANAPPURATH HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADVS. V.K.DINESH KUMAR SRI.S.R.SREEJITH ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31 3 K.A.HASSAN KUTTY AGED 68 YEARS S/O. ABOOBACKER HAJI, KOLAPPARAMBIL, H/NO.ARC 29, BANK OF INDIA COLONY, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, COCHIN 17 BY ADVS. SRI.PAUL JACOB SHRI.S.GANESH SRI.PEARL K.DAVIS SRI.I.K.RAJU SMT.SREEJA V., PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.4219 of 2019 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.4219 of 2019 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of October, 2023** ## **ORDER** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.641/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam. The above case is charge-sheeted against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. This Court perused Annexure-I final report. The F.I.R is also produced along with Annexure-I. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Crl.M.C.No.4219 of 2019 3 ## Annexure-I final report: “ പ്രതതിയയും 1-)o സസാകതിയയും പസാർട്ണർമസാരസായ Mass Media Advertising Pvt. Ltd. എന്ന കമ്പനതി 1-)o സസാകതിയടടെ പരസാതതിപ്രകസാരയും ബഹ: കകരള ഹഹൈകകസാടെതതി അഡതിനതികസ്ട്രേഷൻ ഭരണതതിൽ ആകതിയതതിലുള്ള വതികരസാധയും നതിമതിതയും 03-03-2016 തതീയതതി പകൽ 01.45 മണതികക്ക് ബഹ: ഹഹൈകകസാടെതതി അഡഡ്വകകറക്ക്സക്ക് കചയുംബർ കകസായുംപ്ലകക്ക് ബതിൽഡതിങതിടന്റെ മൻവശയും കസാർ കപസാർചതിൽ വചക്ക് 1-)o സസാകതിടയ ഉപദ്രവതികണയും എന്ന ഉകദ്ദേശകതസാടടെ പ്രതതി പരസസ്യമസായതി അറപ്പുളവസാക്കുന്ന അസഭസ്യങൾ വതിളതിച്ചു പ്രതതി ” കമൽ വകുപക്ക് പ്രകസാരയും കുറയും ടചയതിരതിക്കുന്നു എന്നക്ക് . 4. The specific statement alleged to be made by the petitioner is not stated in the final report. The relevant portion in Annexure-I by which it is stated that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is extracted hereunder: “ഇതക്ക് കകട്ട പസാടടെ പ്രകകസാപതിതനസായ ഇബസാഹൈതിയും എടന്റെ ഹകകക്ക് കടെന്നക്ക് പതിടെതിചക്ക് തതിരതിക്ുയയും പതിടെലതികക്ക് Crl.M.C.No.4219 of 2019 4 ആഞ്ഞടെതിച്ചു കവദനതിപതിക്ുയയും ടചയകപസാൾ ഞസാൻ കുതറതിമസാറതി. പുലയസാടെതി കമസാടന നതിടന്റെ ടക്ലെയതിയും നതിടന്റെ വസാപസാടടെ കബറതിൽ കപസായതി മസാനതിടയടുടകടെസാ എന്നക്ക് പറഞ്ഞു എടന്റെ ഭസാരസ്യടയ കമസാശമസായ ര **ത** ീതിയതിൽ അപവസാദയും ” പറഞ്ഞു ടകസാണസാണക്ക് അയസാൾ എടന്ന ഉപദ്രവതിചതക്ക് . 5. This Court in **Latheef v. State of Kerala** [2014 (2) KLT 987] considered the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 294 IPC. It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of the above order: “3. The very short point for decision in this revision is whether the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner will constitute obscenity as defined under the law. The abusive words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner herein are 'പുലയസാടെതി കമസാടന............' Of course as regards wrongful restraint and assault the two Courts below found the revision petitioner not guilty, and he stands acquitted. As regards the above words alleged to have been used by the petitioner both the Courts below found that it is Crl.M.C.No.4219 of 2019 5 obscene. Of course it stands proved by the evidence of PW 1 that the revision petitioner had in fact used such words in the alleged incident. So, much discussion is not required on that aspect. The question for decision in revision is whether those words will amount to obscenity as defined under the law. If the finding is that such words will not amount to obscenity, the revision petitioner will have to be acquitted. 4. Sub-section (1) of S.292 IPC provides that for the purposes of sub-section (2), dealing with punishment and sentence for obscenity, “a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious, or appeals to the prurient interest, or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons, who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.” Thus subsection (1) to S.292 IPC gives a clear idea as to what is meant by obscenity under the law, punishable under Sections 294(2), 293 and 294 IPC. 5. Abusive words or humiliating words or defamatory words will not as such amount to obscenity as defined under the law. Of course there is no doubt Crl.M.C.No.4219 of 2019 6 that the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner are in fact abusive and humiliating. But to make it obscene, punishable under S.294(b) IPC it must satisfy the definition of obscenity. S.294 IPC does not define obscenity. Being a continuation of the subject dealt with under S.292 IPC the definition of obscenity under 292(1) IPC can be applied in a prosecution under S.294 IPC also. To make punishable, the alleged words must be in a sense lascivious, or it must appeal to the prurient interest, or will deprave and corrupt persons. In P. T. Chacko v. Nainan Chacko reported in 1967 KHC 231 : 1967 KLT 799 this Court held that, “the test of obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.” In Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala reported in 2008 (1) KHC 812 : 2008 (2) KLT 745 : 2008 (1) KLD 339 this Court held thus, “in order to satisfy the test of obscenity, the words alleged to have been uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers.” Thus it is quite clear that, to make obscene the alleged words must involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or the words must have the effect of depraving persons, and defiling morals by sex appeal or lustful desires. I find Crl.M.C.No.4219 of 2019 7 that the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner in this case are really abusive and humiliating, but those words cannot be said to be obscene. As already stated, every abusive word or every humiliating word cannot, by itself, be said to be obscene as defined under the Indian Penal Code. I find that the conviction against the revision petitioner under S.294(b) IPC in this case, on the basis of the above words alleged to have been used by him, is liable to be set aside, and the revision petitioner is entitled to be acquitted.” In the light of the above dictum, even if the allegation in Annexure-I is accepted, no offence is made out. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.641/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** DM Crl.M.C.No.4219 of 2019 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4219/2019** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE ACCUSED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO. 641/2016 OF ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ERNAKULAM RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE