N.K. Balakrishnan, J.

1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. NO. 486/2006 pending before JFCM - II, Ernakulam. Offence alleged against him is punishable under Section 509 I.P.C. The charge-sheet reads to the effect that on 14-5-2006 at about 7 a.m. the accused with the intention to insult the complainant abused her in the presence of the public. The accused is the Vicar of that Church. It is alleged that he asked “Daisy, why are you peeping Why are you standing here For peeping, nothing is being done here”. This according to the prosecution would attract the offence under Section 509 I.P.C. Section 509 I.P.C reads:-

“509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman - whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, 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 one year, or with fine, or with both”.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation to the effect that the accused made any gesture or that he exhibited any object at the complainant. It is also submitted that nothing was said by the accused which would intrude upon the privacy of the complainant. It can never be imagined that the words allegedly used by the accused which are incorporated in the charge-sheet and in her complaint would ever insult the modesty of any woman. The words allegedly uttered by the accused can never be said to be a word intruding upon the privacy of the complainant. There was no indecent representation of P.W.1. No defamatory statement was also made. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would defy the logic to invoke the offence under Sec. 509 I.P.C. so as to proceed against the petitioner herein. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal AIR 2010 SC 3196 :-

“Similarly, Section 509 I.P.C criminalises a 'word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman' and in order to establish this offence it is necessary to show that the modesty of a particular woman or a readily identifiable group of women has been insulted by a spoken word, gesture or physical act”.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that the words used by the accused have to be understood in the context in which such words were used. It is alleged that the accused made that insinuation against the complainant while she entered the Chapel/Church when there were so many other persons to hear and as such those words did intrude upon the privacy of the complainant. From the words quoted in the charge-sheet I could not see any word which would intrude upon the privacy of the complainant nor can it be said that it was intended to insult the modesty of that woman. Simply because the complainant thinks that the words uttered by the accused carried some other meaning it cannot be said that the accused can be put to trial. Where the allegations made in the first information statement/charge-sheet even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, it would be well within the jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings, for otherwise the accused may have to face an unnecessary trial. Similarly, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge then also this court would be justified in invoking Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. It is true that the power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceedings can be exercised only sparingly and only when such an exercise is justified by the fact situation of the case.