IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Fr Geevargese John @ Subin John – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.MC No. 1242 of 2018
Decided on : 08-09-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 120(o) – Defamatory statements - Penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order - Case is charge sheeted against petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 120(o) of Kerala Police Act - Whether Section 120(o) of Kerala Police Act, 2011 is attracted in this case – There is no proper punishment for defamatory statements and posters on Facebook. (Para 13)
Finding of the Court :
After perusing Facebook post, complaint as well as final report, Court is of considered opinion that this would not come within purview of Section 120(o) of Kerala Police Act, 2011 - There is no proper punishment for such defamatory statements and posters on Facebook - Legislature must look into this aspect seriously, especially in backdrop of this new era of technology and Social Media mania in existence in our society - At any rate offence punishable under Section 120(o) of Kerala Police Act, 2011 is not attracted, even if, allegations in Annexure-A8 final report are accepted in toto.
Result: Criminal case is allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal points are as follows:
The case involves a petition challenging the applicability of Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, which prescribes penalties for causing nuisance and violation of public order through means of communication (!) (!) .
The essential elements of an offence under Section 120(o) include causing nuisance of oneself to another person via communication means, which can include repeated, undesirable, or anonymous calls, letters, messages, emails, or via a messenger (!) (!) (!) .
The court examined whether the Facebook posts in question constituted causing nuisance under this section. It concluded that the nature of the Facebook posts, including the alleged defamatory content, does not fall within the scope of causing nuisance as defined by the section (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that there is no proper punishment prescribed for defamatory statements and posters on social media platforms under the current law, indicating a need for legislative review to address this gap in the context of modern technology (!) (!) .
The court found that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not satisfy the criteria for an offence under Section 120(o). Consequently, the registration of the case under this section was deemed an abuse of process, leading to the quashing of the proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the court held that the offence under Section 120(o) was not attracted in this case, and the criminal proceedings related to the case were accordingly quashed (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
ORDER :
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).
2. The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No. 263/2017 of Edakkara Police Station now pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nilambur as S.T. No.677/2017. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. The case was registered based on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. Annexure-A1 is the complaint. Annexure-A3 is the F.I.R. Annexure-A4 is the First Information Statement. Annexure-A5 is the Facebook post.
3. The 2nd respondent is an Orthodox Christian Priest of the Indian Orthodox Church. The main allegation in the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent is that on 08.08.2017, about 35 priests from Malankara Orthodox Church conducted a Hunger Strike before the Head of the Orthodox Church in the Main centre, Kottayam holding a Banner. But, it is stated that with an intention to insult, the rival priest replaced the banner and defamed him before the fellow priests and public at large. Based on Annexure-A1 to A5, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nilambur, passed Annexure-A6 order granting permission to register the case. Annexure-A7 is the memorandum of evidence produced along with the charge sheet. Annexure-A8 is the final report. According to the petitioner, the offence under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, is not attracted, even if the entire allegations in the final report are accepted. Hence, this Crl. M.C. is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The short point to be decided is whether Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 is attracted in this case. It will be better to extract Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
“Section 120: Penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order
If any person,---
(o) causing, through any means of communication, a nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, email or through a messenger,
shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.”
6. The ingredients of an offence under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 are:
i. A person causing a nuisance of himself to another person;
ii. Causing such nuisance shall be through any means of communication;
iii. Act causing nuisance may be done by the repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a messenger;
7. In other words, a person causing nuisance of himself to any other person through any means of communication, is the essential ingredient of an offence punishable under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
8. The Annexure-A1 is the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. The contents of Annexure-A1 complaint is extracted here under;
9. The main allegation in the complaint is that a photo was posted on Facebook with a wrong banner manipulated by the accused. Annexure-A8 is the final report. It will be better to extract the contents of Annexure-A8 also;
10. In Sajidh D. v. State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 808], this Court observed that, the act of the petitioner -sharing the Facebook post -cannot be considered as a responsible act done by him. This Court in Sanjeev S. v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KHC 324] considered the scope of Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 once again. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment;
“12. The remaining question is whether S.120(o) of the Police Act, is attracted in the present case. The Section reads as ‘if any person, causing, through any means of communication, a nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a messenger shall
SupremeToday
Defamation claims under IPC Section 500 require a formal complaint from the aggrieved party; proceedings may be quashed if not properly established.
The court established that intent to insult modesty and causing nuisance through communication can warrant criminal proceedings under IPC and K.P Act.
Prosecution for criticism of government actions does not violate free speech unless it incites public disorder.
Word 'OTHER LANGUAGE’ is not a defamatory term and the use of the said term in the context cannot be said to be defamatory.
Quashment of criminal proceedings is not permissible if prima facie evidence exists to support allegations of sexual harassment and insulting modesty under relevant sections of IPC and KP Act.
No prima facie case established for the alleged offenses under the Kerala Police Act based on the facts presented.
Allegations of stalking and obscenity must meet legal thresholds of intent and evidence; mere accusations without substantiation are insufficient for prosecution.
The court quashed proceedings against the accused, establishing that allegations did not substantiate the offence under the relevant statute.
The intention to insult the modesty of a woman is required to establish an offence under Section 509 IPC, which was not evidenced in this case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.