Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
M.A.Vaheed – Appellant
Versus
K.K.Lathika – Respondent
Crl.M.C. Nos. 370, 2111 & 3178 of 2016
Decided on : 13-09-2024
Criminal Law - Kerala Legislative Assembly - IPC Sections 341, 354 - The court quashed proceedings against accused members of the assembly, finding no ingredients of the alleged offences were made out.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves complaints against members of the Kerala Legislative Assembly for allegedly obstructing a minister from presenting the budget and for actions deemed to outrage modesty during a protest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaints did not disclose essential ingredients of the offences under IPC Sections 341 and 354, as the actions were part of a political protest.
Issues: Whether the actions of the accused constituted wrongful restraint and assault with intent to outrage modesty under IPC Sections 341 and 354.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainants, as part of a political protest, had no right to obstruct the minister's constitutional duty, thus negating the claims of wrongful restraint and assault.
Result: All further proceedings against the petitioners in both cases are quashed.
ORDER :
These three Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are connected and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common order.
2. Petitioners and 1st respondents in these cases were Members of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. Petitioners in Crl.M.C. Nos.3178/2016 and 2111/2016 are the accused in C.C. No.1389/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st respondent in these cases is the complainant in the above cases. Petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 370/2016 is the 1st accused in C.C. No.1390/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1srt respondent in the above case is the complainant in that case. The alleged incident in these cases happened on 13.03.2015 in the Kerala Legislative Assembly.
3. I will narrate the facts in Crl.M.C. Nos.3178/2016 and 2111/2016 which are filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1389/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners are the accused in the above case. They were the members of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The gist of the allegation in the complaint filed against the petitioners by the 1st respondent in these cases which is produced as Annexure A in these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are as follows: The 1st respondent was an MLA representing Kovalam constituency and she is the wife of Dr. A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar. Her husband was elected as MLA from Kovalam on several occasions earlier and he was a Minister and also a former Member of Parliament. There was a political agitation under the leadership of the Left Democratic Front (LDF) demanding the resignation of the Finance Minister, Sri.K.M. Mani and they had demanded that Sri.K.M. Mani should not present the State Budget 2015-16. The State budget was scheduled to be presented in the Assembly at 9.00 AM on 13.03.2015. As directed by the LDF, in order to obstruct Sri.K.M. Mani from the presenting of Budget, the 1st respondent and fellow members of the Assembly were raising protest slogans in the Assembly. At about 8.45 a.m., the 1st respondent and five other women MLAs stood facing the door through which Ministers usually enter the house, raising slogans. At that time, the 1st respondent saw Sri.K.Sivadasan Nair, MLA (who is the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.3178/2016) and some other ruling party MLAs sitting in the back row of the Assembly. The 1st respondent alleges that, after a few minutes, Sri.K.Sivadasan Nair MLA approached her from behind, grabbed her waist with his right hand and exerted force. It is alleged that he pressed on her back with his knee and held her close to his body by applying force. The 1st respondent further claims that she escaped from Sri. Sivadasan Nair by using force. The 1st respondent further alleges that the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.2111/2016 who was standing nearby called her 
and yelled at her that 
According to the 1st respondent, the above alleged act of the 1st accused was with the intention to outrage her modesty and it is claimed that the 2nd accused aided the 1st accused in committing the alleged offence, by saying the words mentioned above and the same had caused her a feeling of disgust. The 1st respondent claims that the 1st and 2 nd accused acted in unison in furtherance of their common intention. The 1st respondent claims that the Legislative Assembly is a public place, and as a Member of that Assembly, she has freedom of movement inside the House, and this was obstructed by the 1st accused. The 1st respondent also submitted a written complaint before the Speaker of the Assembly immediately after the incident and thereafter a detailed complaint was again made on 19.03.2015. However, no action was taken is the submission. The 1st respondent also approached the Director General of Police with a complaint on 23.03.2015. But no case was registered. Hence Annexure A complaint was filed.
4. According to the respondent, the incident mentioned in the co
Charges under Section 354 IPC cannot be sustained without evidence demonstrating intent to outrage modesty; however, a charge under Section 352 IPC was upheld based on allegations of using criminal f....
The conviction under Section 354 IPC was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intent to outrage modesty, while the conviction under Section 323 IPC was modified to a lenient sentence.
The court held that the allegations of assault and outraging modesty were sufficient to proceed with a trial under Sections 323 and 354 IPC.
Legal proceedings can be quashed if they are established to be maliciously instituted without sufficient evidence, causing an abuse of judicial process.
Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely th....
Allegations of stalking and obscenity must meet legal thresholds of intent and evidence; mere accusations without substantiation are insufficient for prosecution.
The court upheld the conviction under minor offences despite failure to substantiate major charges, emphasizing mens rea in determining the conviction under Section 354 IPC.
Summoning of an accused under IPC Section 354 requires clear evidence; unexplained delays and lack of corroborating witnesses render allegations insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
