Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala and Sthuthi V.P.

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ## `CRL.MC NO. 3551 OF 2017` ``` CRIME NO.983/2016 OF Nallalam Police Station, Kozhikode AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.50 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED:` ``` VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. RAMUNNIKUTTY NAIR, MENOMPARAMBATH, AZHINJILAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2STHUTHI V.P. W/O. MANOJ. P, VALAYANNOORPOYILIL, PURAKKATTERI, THALAKULATHUR POST, KOZHIKODE - 673 317. ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.3551/2017 2 ## **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ## **-------------------------------------------** Crl.M.C.No.3551 of 2017 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of July, 2024 ## **ORDER** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.50 of 2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode as evident by Annexure-A2 final report. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner committed the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506 IPC on 02.10.2016 at about 11 a.m. A complaint was filed on 21.10.2016 and Annexure-A1 FIR is registered. Annexure-A2 is the final report. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. 3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C.3551/2017 3 4. This Court perused the final report in this case. The allegation against the petitioner in the final report is extracted hereunder: ‘2.10.16 കാലത 11.00 മണിയ തിയ്യതി ോടെ പ്രതികുറ്റം ചെയ്യണം എന്ന ഉദ്ദേശ്യ്ത്തോടേയും മുൻകരുതലലോടേയും ഒന്നാം സാക്ഷിതന്നെഓഫീസിൽകസ്റ്റമറെക കൊണ്ടുവന്നതിൽപ്രതിക ലഭിക്കുന്ന ക്രെഡിറ്റും ബെ നിഫിറ്റും നഷ്ടപ്പെടും എന്ന വിരോധം കോഴി അംശം വെച പരാതികാരിയെക ്ക്കോട് താലൂക ഒളവണ്ണ ദേശം തെക്കു വടക്കായിപ പോകുന്നത തൊണ്ടയാട് പന്തീരാങ്കാവ് ബൈ പാസ് റോഡിന്റെ പാലാഴി പാല എന്ന സ്ഥലത്തു ഭാഗം സ്‌ഥിതി റോഡിന്റെ പടിഞ്ഞാറു ചെയ്യുന്ന അബാക്കസ് ബിൽഡിങ്ങിൽ പ്രവൃത്തിക്കുന്ന കാലിക്കറ ലാൻഡ് മാർക ബിൽഡേഴ്‌സ്എന്നസ്ഥാപനത്തിലെ ഗാർലെറ്എനനഎഴുതിയ മീറ്റിംഗ് ഹാളിന്റെ മുൻവശം ഇടനാഴിയിൽ വെച മറ്റാൾക്കാർ കേൾക്കെ വിധത്തിൽ അസഭ്യ ഭാഷയിൽ ചീത്ത വിളിക്ുയും കൊല്ലുമെന ഭീഷണിപ്പെടുത്തുകയും ചെയ് ായി വ്യക്തമായും വെളിവാക്കുന്നതിനാൽ പ്രതി ഇ. ശി. നി. 294(b), 506 പ്രകാരം . ശിക്ഷാർഹമായകുറ്റംചെയ്തിരിക്കുന്നു : - FIR, , യാഥാസ്‌തു സംഭവസ്ഥലമഹസർ പ്രതിക കോളത്തിൽ പേർ വിവരം ചേർക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള റിപ്പോർട എന്നിവക കോടതിക അയച്ചിട്ടുണ. ‘ 5. This Court in **Avinash v. State of Kerala** [ **2021(6)** **KHC 357** ] considered the ingredients of Section 294(b) IPC. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above decision: ‘9. With respect to the charge under S.294(b) it has to be noted that the complaint, statements and the final report does not mention exactly as to the words or statement uttered by the petitioner so as to warrant Crl.M.C.3551/2017 4 attracting ingredients of offence under S.294(b). It is to be noted that the test of obscenity under S.294(b) of the Indian Penal Code is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. The following passage from the judgment of Justice K. K. Mathew reported in P. T. Chacko v. Nainan (1967 KHC 231 : 1967 KLT 799) reads as follows: "The only point argued was that the 1st accused has not committed an offence punishable under S.294(b) IPC., by uttering the words above - mentioned. The Courts below have held that the words uttered were obscene and the utterance caused annoyance to the public. I am not inclined to take this view. In the Queen v. Hicklin 1868-3 - QB.360 at 371 Cockburn C.J. Laid down the test of 'obscenity' in these words: "...the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" This test has been uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court has accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR1965 SC 881 at 887. In Samuel Roth v. U.S.A., (1957) 354 U. S. 476, Chief Justice Warren said that the test of 'obscenity' is the "substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful desires". Mr. Justice Harlan observed that in order to be 'obscene' the matter must "tend to sexually impure thoughts". I do not think that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. It may be that the words are defamatory of the complainant, but I do not think that the words are 'obscene' and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under S.294(b) IPC". It has to be noted that in the instance case, the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot Crl.M.C.3551/2017 5 attract the offence under S.294(b). None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under S.294(b) IPC.’ Even if the entire allegations in the final report are accepted, I am of the considered opinion that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not attracted. 6. As far as Section 506 IPC is considered, the Apex Court in **Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karnatka and Another** [ **2015 KHC 4046** ] considered the ingredients of the same. It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of the judgment: ‘13. S.506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in S.503 IPC is as under: "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 is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any 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 execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Crl.M.C.3551/2017 6 Explanation.-- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section." 14. A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. 15. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on Crl.M.C.3551/2017 7 the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in S.503 IPC.’ 7. In the light of the above principle, this Court perused the allegation against the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 506 IPC is also not attracted. 8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.50 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode are quashed. Sd/- ## **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Sbna/30.07.24 Crl.M.C.3551/2017 8 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3551/2017` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 983 OF 2016 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION DATED 21.10.2016. ANNEXURE A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 983 OF 2016 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION DATED 28.11.2017. ```