High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-01-24Petitions disposed; 4412/2018 allowed, quashing...

T. Mani v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC No. 3790 of 2018; CRL.MC No. 4412 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2019-01-24
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. No.4412 of 2018 is allowed; Annexure-A2 final report and the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 6 in Crime No.281/2017 (now CC No.203/2018, J.M.F.C., Mananthavady) are quashed. Crl.M.C. No.3790 of 2018 is dismissed. The operative order quashes the proceedings only against accused Nos.2-6; the charges against the 1st accused (T. Mani) remain for trial.
Final Disposition: Petitions disposed; 4412/2018 allowed, quashing final report against accused Nos.2-6; 3790/2018 dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T. Mani
M.S. Mohanan
M.K. Jijesh
Rajesh Thankaraj
M.K. Mahesh
M.G. Ramesh

Respondents

State of Kerala
Sukanya M.G.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. K. Ramkumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Kishor B.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment deals with two criminal miscellaneous petitions (CRL.MC Nos. 3790 of 2018 and 4412 of 2018) challenging the proceedings in CC No. 203 of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mananthavady, arising from Crime No. 218/2017 (later 281/2017) of the Mananthavady Police Station. The first petitioner, T. Mani, is the president of the Yadava Seva Samithi; the other petitioners in the second petition (Nos. 2-6) are office-bearers, while Sukanya M.G. (Addl R2) is the complainant/second respondent, alleging ostracism by Yadava community members after she married a man within the same community. The offences cited in the challan include Section 506(1) IPC (criminal intimidation), Section 509 IPC (insulting modesty by words), and Section 354A(1)(iv) r/w Section 34 IPC (outraging modesty of a woman) though the court notes the context of alleged ostracism and a TV discussion. The petitioners contend that, even if the allegations are accepted, they do not establish the offences and that 2-6 were roped in without cause, arguing abuse of process. The court cites Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) to interpret the notion of “modesty.” Ultimately, the court allows CRL.MC No. 4412/2018 against accused Nos. 2-6 (quashing the final report and proceedings) and dismisses CRL.MC No. 3790/2018 against T. Mani, thereby disposing of the petitions in part and maintaining the trial against the 1st accused.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.IPC Sections 506(1), 509, 354A(1)(iv) read with Section 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Test for outraging modesty as interpreted in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194
Principle: abuse of process of law

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that, even if the allegations were admitted in full, they would not establish any offence. They asserted that the alleged utterance by the first accused during a TV discussion could not be categorized as a sexually colored remark under IPC 354(1)(iv) nor as an act done with the intent to outrage modesty. Accused Nos.2 to 6 were roped in without just cause, and continuing with the proceedings would constitute abuse of process. They urged quashing of the proceedings against them and a dismissal of their petition for lack of cognizable offence against the 1st accused.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the matter involves possible outraging of modesty and coercive ostracism, with allegations sufficient to attract sections relating to criminal intimidation, insult to modesty, and outraging modesty under IPC. The extended participation of accused Nos.2-6 in the ostracism and their conduct in the community context warranted continuation of proceedings at least to the extent of the 1st accused’s utterance and related conduct; the petitions should not be allowed to foreclose an appropriate trial on merits.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rupan Deol Bajaj and Ors. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Ors.	(1995) 6 SCC 194	Positive	Used to interpret the meaning of 'modesty' and test for outraging modesty; the court relies on this authority to assess whether the utterance would constitute an offence under Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against T. Mani v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 4TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3790 of 2018** **AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.203/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE J.M.F.C.-I, KOTTARAKKARA** **CRIME NO.218/2017 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **T.MANI, S/O. CHINNASWAMY, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT DIVYA NIVAS, ERUMATHERUVU, P.O. MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANATHAVADY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. ADDL.R2 SUKANYA.M.G., W/O.ARUN PRASAD, RESIDING AT VALAPPALA HOUSE, ASIYA QUARTERS, MILK SOCIETY ROAD, ERUMATHERUVU P.O, MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.PIN 670645.** **(ADDL R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/12/2018 IN CRL MA 2/2018)** ## **OTHER PRESENT: SRI. REMESH CHAND—PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4412/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 4TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4412 of 2018** **AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.203/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE J.M.F.C, MANANTHAVADY** **CRIME NO. 281/2017 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** |**1**|**M.S.MOHANAN,**| |---|---| ||**S/O SUNDARAN, AGED 51 YEARS,**| ||**RESIDING AT MANU NIVAS, CLUBKUNNU,**| ||**P.O MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**M.K.JIJESH,**| ||**S/O KRISHNAN, AGED 34 YEARS,**| ||**RESIDING AT MKP NIVAS, ARATTUTHARA PO,**| ||**P.O MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.**| |**3**|**RAJESH THANKARAJ,**| ||**S/O THANKARAJ, AGED 45 YEARS,**| ||**CHETTIKKA HOUSE B STREET, P.O MANATHAVADY,**| ||**WAYANAD DISTRICT.**| |**4**|**M.K.MAHESH,**| ||**S/O KRISHNAN, AGED 32 YEARS, ARATTUTHARA PO,**| ||**MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.**| |**5**|**M.G. RAMESH,**| ||**S/O GOPALAN, AGED 49 YEARS,**| ||**RESIDING AT MVG ALAYAM, B STREET,**| ||**P.O MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR**| CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 3 ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANATHAVADY POLICE STATION, PIN-670645.** - **2 SUKANYA M.G., W/O ARUN PRASAD, RESIDING AT VALAPPALA HOUSE, AYISA QUARTERS, PAL SOCIETY ROAD, ERUMATHERUVU, P.O MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-PIN-670645. BY ADV. SRI.KISHOR B.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3790/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 4 ## **ORDER** These petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.203 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mananthavady. In the aforesaid case, the accused faces indictment under Sections 506(1), 509 and 354 A (i) (iv) r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The 2[nd] respondent is a member of the Yadava Community. The 1[st] accused, who is the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.3790 of 2018, is the president of a community organization by name ‘Yadava Seva Samithi’ and the accused Nos. 2 to 6, who are the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.4412 of 2018, are the office bearers of the said organization. The 2[nd] respondent fell in love with a man belonging to the same community and she married him. This was not to the liking of the petitioners. She was socially ostracized and was prohibited from taking part in any activities of the Yadava Community. She was also prohibited from entering her home or that of her spouse. The members of the community were also directed to keep away from her. The 2[nd] respondent filed complaints before various authorities and this was taken up by several right thinking persons, who felt that the restrictions imposed were unacceptable. A TV channel invited the 1[st] accused and the lawyer representing the petitioners for a discussion. CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 5 In the course of discussion, the 1[st] accused is alleged to have blurted out that the 2[nd] respondent was ostracized from the community as she had become pregnant prior to her marriage. According to the 2[nd] respondent, the said utterance was made by the 1[st] accused and this was seen by the viewers of the TV program and was made with intent to outrage her modesty. Insofar as accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, she alleges that they also had a role in ostracizing her from the community. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the allegations, even if they are admitted in its entirety, would not make out an offence against the petitioners. The utterance cannot be a sexually coloured remark punishable under Section 354(1) (iv) nor can it be categorized as one made with intent to outrage her modesty. Insofar as accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, they have been roped in without any cause, submits the learned counsel. It is finally submitted that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and I have perused the final report. CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 6 ## 5. The Apex Court in **Rupan Deol Bajaj and Ors.** v. **Kanwar** **Pal Singh Gill and Ors.** [(1995) 6 SCC 194], while interpreting the breadth and meaning of the word “modesty” occurring in Section 354 of the IPC had held that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. Having considered the utterances made by the 1[st] accused, I do not think that the submission of the learned counsel can be accepted. Stating that she had become pregnant before her marriage would tantamount to proclaim that she was unchaste and immoral. Those words would definitely tantamount to an outrage of female modesty. Any word spoken or sung, picture or figure exhibited which suggests lewd thoughts is immoral and insulting to female modesty, unless it is shown that the woman was also a consenting party. In view of the above, I am of the view that the 1[st] accused is not entitled to get the proceedings as against him brought to a premature termination. 6. However, insofar as the accused Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned the only allegation is that they were also instrumental in taking a decision to keep the 2[nd] respondent away from the community. No other allegation is leveled against them. I am of the view that the CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 7 uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie do not establish the offence as against accused Nos.2 to 6. The chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue in so far as they are concerned. I am inclined to allow the petition insofar as it concerns accused Nos. 2 to 6. In the result, Crl.M.C. No.4412 of 2018 is allowed and Annexure-A2 final report and the proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 6 in Crime No.281 of 2017, now pending as C.C. No.203 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mananthavady are quashed. Crl.M.C. No.3790 of 2018 is dismissed. ## **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** krj //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE CRL.MC:3790 & 4412 OF 2018 8 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3790/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT WITH CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.203/2018 CASE ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MANANTHAVADY.** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.WITH F.I.STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 281/2017 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE.** **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THIS HON'BLE COURT'S ORDER IN CRL.M.C.3431 OF 2017.** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 4412/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT WITH CHARGE SHEET IN CC 203/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE JFCM COURT MANANTHAVADY.** **ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR & FI STATEMENT IN CRIME 0281/17 OF MANATHAVADY POLICE. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRIMINAL MC 4509/2017 CASE.**