IMPORTANT POINTS:
• Law should not insist for proceeding under the cover of predominant social interest to ensure that section 228A IPC is paramount.
• Society has a duty to support the victims of sexual violence and to ensure that they come back to normalcy and start leading a normal life.
• If the victim herself has no objection in quashing the proceedings and does not apprehend a social persecution by disclosure of her name in a given case, she can waive the benefit of statutory protection. Law should not insist for proceeding under the cover of predominant social interest to ensure that section 228A IPC is paramount, notwithstanding the fact that the victim has condoned the conduct of a person who had disclosed her identity. However, such a situation may not be available under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

1. This Crl. M.C is preferred by the sole accused in Crime No.1385 of 2017 of Kalamassery Police Station for offence punishable under section 228A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The factual matrix leading to the present case lies in a very narrow compass. According to the petitioner herein, he is an artist in the Malayalam film industry. The third respondent is a well known cine actress in the same industry. According to the prosecution, in February 2017, while the third respondent was proceeding to Ernakulam in her car, she was sexually assaulted by a group of persons in the vehicle, which led to the registration of Crime No.297 of 2017 of the Nedumbassery Police Station for offences punishable under sections 342, 366, 376, 506(i), 120(b) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 66E and 67A of IT Act. Petitioner posted a comment in his facebook account, inter alia, deprecating the act towards the actress and commenting that, it was a heinous act. He had disclosed the name of the victim in the above post. According to the petitioner, immediately on getting information that disclosing the identity of the victim was against the law, he immediately tendered an apology and removed her name from the post. He also tendered an apology to the third respondent, it is claimed. In the meanwhile, the second respondent herein who allegedly had occasion to see the facebook post filed a complaint before the Kalamassery Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under section 228A of the IPC. It led to the registration of the present crime. After investigation, final report was laid and is now pending as C.C.No.1297 of 2017, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery.

3. Petitioner has approached this Court contending that, he was not well versed with law and being an ordinary human being, who succumb to human frailties, and in his anxiety to support his associate, had inadvertently mentioned her name. He also claimed that he had immediately removed the name from the facebook and also apologized to the victim, who gracefully accepted it. She has sworn an affidavit produced as Annexure-A4, affirming that the petitioner herein is her associate, had been a good friend of her over a long period of time and without any malafide intention, he had published her name in the official facebook. She has stated that, she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings in Crime No.1385 of 2017 of Kalamassery Police Station resulting in final report and the proceedings in C.C.No.1297 of 2017.

4. Notice was issued to the second respondent/defacto complainant, who did not appear to contest the proceedings. Heard learned Additional Director General of Prosecution appearing for the State, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the third respondent in extenso.

5. The crux of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, reference of the name of victim was unintentional. It was also contended that, though section 228A IPC provides an absolute bar on the disclosure of name or the identity of the victim, subsection (2)(b) of section 228A IPC exempts, if it is published or printed by, or with the authorization in writing of the victim. It was also pointed out that the offence by its nature is bailable, cognizable and non compoundable. It was contended that facebook post was virtually intended to show allegiance to the unfortunate victim and was intended to support her. Hence, no malice could be attributed to him and his stand that the name was inadvertently disclosed stood substantiated, it was argued. It was also pointed out that, since the third respondent has acknowledged this, it should be deemed as an expost facto authorization in writing, satisfying substantially, the ingredient of section 2(b) of 228A of the IPC and hence, criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed. It was further contended that the petitioner did not maintain any animosity towards the victim. It was further argu