Important points:
" In order to attract Section 119(1)(a) of the Act, the sexual gesture or act performed by a person in a public place, need not be directed against any particular woman.
" No woman has made any complaint against the act allegedly performed by the petitioner or no woman aggrieved by such act was questioned by the police, is not fatal to the prosecution case against the petitioner. Moreover, as per Section 125(1) of the Act, the offence under Section 119(1)(a) of the Act is cognizable.

The petitioner is the sole accused in the case C.C.No.119/2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Temporary), Sasthamcotta. He seeks to quash the proceedings against him by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that, on 19.02.2017, at about 10.35 hours, at a public road, the Sub Inspector, Sasthamcotta police station found him making obscene gestures having sexual flavour, degrading the dignity of the women who were passing through the road. The Sub Inspector arrested the petitioner from the spot. A case was registered against the petitioner as Crime No. 272/2017 of Sasthamcotta police station under Section 119(1)(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. After completing the investigation, the Sub Inspector filed Annexure-B final report against the petitioner in the court concerned for the offence punishable under Section 119(1)(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings based on Annexure-B final report on various grounds.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner on the following grounds: (1) No woman had made any complaint against the petitioner. No woman aggrieved by any act of the petitioner was questioned by the police. No woman aggrieved by any act of the petitioner is cited as a witness in Annexure-B final report. (2) Only the Sub Inspector and two civil police officers are cited as witnesses to prove the incident. No independent public witness is cited. (3) The police officer who detected the offence himself conducted the investigation of the case and it has caused prejudice to the petitioner. (4) Annexure-A first information report or Annexure-B final report does not reveal that the petitioner has committed any act punishable under Section 119(1)(a) of the Act.

5. On the other hand, learned Public prosecutor submitted that considering the nature of allegations and the offence alleged against the petitioner, the proceedings against him cannot be quashed as it involves public interest.

6. Section 119(1)(a) of the Act provides that any person who performs, in public places, any sexual gestures or acts degrading the dignity of women, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees or with both.

7. Section 119(1)(a) of the Act penalizes performance of sexual gestures or acts, in public places, degrading the dignity of women. In order to attract Section 119(1)(a) of the Act, the sexual gesture or act performed by a person in a public place, need not be directed against any particular woman. Any sexual gesture or act performed by a person in a public place, which has the effect of degrading the dignity of women in general, is punishable under Section 119(1)(a) of the Act. The prosecution need not establish that, by the performance of a sexual gesture or act by a person in a public place, dignity of any particular woman was degraded. It is sufficient for the prosecution to establish that sexual gesture or act performed by a person in a public place has degraded the dignity of women as a class.

8. Therefore, the fact that no woman has made any complaint against the act allegedly performed by the petitioner or no woman aggrieved by such act was questioned by the police, is not fatal to the prosecution case against the petitioner. Moreover, as per Section 125(1) of the Act, the offence under Section 119(1)(a) of the Act is cognizable.

9. True, the Sub Inspector who detected the offence and the two civil police officers who were accompanying him, are the only witnesses cited by the prosecution to prove the alleged incident. The proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed on that ground. The Sub I