SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Anson I.J., S/o. Josichan Korath Jose and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.MC No. 4854 Of 2021
Decided On : 30-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: John Sebastian Ralph V., Vishnu Chandran, Ralph Reti John, Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Appu Babu, Vishnumaya M.B., Geethu T.A., Apoorva Ramkumar.
For the Respondents: P.V. Saritha Venugopal, Basil Mathew, Sri. Renjit George, Sr. Public Prosecutor.

IMPORTANT POINT
Defamatory remarks not directed at a woman do not constitute an offense under Section 509 of IPC, as they fail to demonstrate intent to insult her modesty.

Headnote:

Quash - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Section 509 - The court interpreted Section 509 of IPC, emphasizing that mere defamatory remarks not directed at the victim do not constitute an offense under this section, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, accused of making defamatory remarks about the complainant, sought to quash the final report and proceedings against them under Section 509 of IPC, arguing that their statements did not directly insult the complainant's modesty.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations did not meet the criteria for an offense under Section 509 of IPC, as the remarks were not directed at the complainant and did not demonstrate intent to insult her modesty or intrude upon her privacy.

Issues: Whether the statements made by the accused constituted an offense under Section 509 of IPC, given that they were not directed at the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an offense under Section 509 of IPC to be established, the words or gestures must be directed at the woman with the intent to insult her modesty, which was not the case here.

Result: The petition to quash the proceedings was allowed.

ORDER :

(A. Badharudeen, J.) :

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.475/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents, including the decisions of this Court in Sibi v. State of Kerala reported in 2021 (1) KLT 749 and xxxx V. State of Kerala reported in 2024 KHC Online 584 placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused herein committed offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC and the specific allegation is that the accused persons, with intention to insult the modesty of the complainant, made defamatory remarks in and out the premises of the flat building, where the accused and the defacto complainant have been residing, stating that the defacto complainant is a prostitute. Recording the statement of the victim, crime was registered and investigated. Thereafter, final report filed, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 509 r/w 34 of IPC, for which cognizance also was taken by the Magistrate.

4. While canvassing quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioners pressed the point that even if the words alleged to be stated by the accused are defamatory, the same by itself would not attract offence under Section 509 of IPC. In this regard, he has placed the decision in Sibi’s case (supra) wherein this Court held as under:

    “In the instant case, the allegation is not that the petitioners/accused persons have uttered any word or made any sound or gesture, etc, to the wife of the 2nd respondent, who is said to be the victim, with the intention to insult her modesty. The allegation is that the petitioners have sent derogatory and defamatory letters about the said woman to a third party (CW3). The said lady victim is mentioned as CW2 in Annexure-2 charge sheet. The said factual allegations, if true, may have disclosed offence as per S.500 of the IPC or S.501 of the IPC which deals with defamation. The investigation agency has rightly understood that the offence as per section 500 or 501 of the IPC cannot be the subject matter of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate on the basis of a police report/final report/charge sheet.

By no such imagination the act of the accused persons in sending derogatory or defamatory letters about the lady victim to a third person, even if it is assumed that the same is done with the intention to insult the modesty of the lady victim, cannot be subject matter of the offences under S.509 of the IPC. Hence, in the instant case none of the offences alleged in the impugned criminal proceedings including the one at Annexure -A2 court charge would lie in the instant case.”

5. The learned counsel also placed decision of this Court in Ramesh V. Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2021(1) KLT 735 to buttress his contention though the facts dealt therein are different from the facts of this case.

6. In xxxx V. State of Kerala (supra), this Court analysed the ingredients to attract offence under Section 509 of IPC, after referring the decision of this Court in Joseph M.V. v. State of Kerala, reported in 2024 KHC OnLine 440, in paragraph No.11, which reads as under:

    “11. In the decision in Joseph M.V. v. State of Kerala reported in [2024 KHC OnLine 440 : 2024 KER 36566], in paragraph Nos.11 to 13, this Court held as under:

“11. In order to bring home an offence punishable under S.509 IPC, the ingredients are; utterance of any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, with an intention to insult the modesty of a woman, or with intention to intrude upon the privacy of such a woman.

12. Coming to the definition of the word 'modesty', the same has

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top