IMPORTANT POINT
Allegations of stalking and obscenity must meet legal thresholds of intent and evidence; mere accusations without substantiation are insufficient for prosecution.

ORDER :

S.MANU, J.

The challenge in this Crl.M.C is against the proceedings arising from Crime No.1171 of 2019 of Thrissur East Police Station. The said case was registered on the basis of a petition submitted by the 2nd respondent to the State Police Chief on 21.10.2019. The State Police Chief forwarded the petition to the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, with a direction that the case should be investigated by the District Crime Branch under the personal supervision of the District Police Chief. The Station House Officer of Thrissur East Police Station thereafter registered FIR on 23.10.2019, alleging the offences under Sections 354D and 509 of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed this Crl.M.C praying to quash all further proceedings in the crime, on registration of the FIR. During the pendency of the Crl.M.C., police concluded the investigation and filed the final report. The case is now pending as C.C.No.1102 of 2020 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur. In the final report, offences under Sections 354D, 294(b), 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for brevity), and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, are alleged.

3. The petitioner filed an application thereafter, seeking to alter the prayer in the Crl.M.C as to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No. 1102 of 2020, pending with the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur. The said application was allowed by order dated 21.12.2022 in Crl.M.Appln.No.2 of 2022. By an order in Crl.M.Appln.No.3 of 2022, the further proceedings in C.C.No.1102 of 2020 were stayed on the same day.

4. Though notice was duly served on the 2nd respondent and later intimation through police was also given, there is no appearance on her behalf.

5. Reading of the petition dated 21.10.2019 submitted by the 2nd respondent to the State Police Chief reveals that her case stated in it was as follows:

The 2nd respondent is an actress, active in the movie field for more than two decades. A charitable organization named “Manju Warrier Foundation,” formed by her along with her parents, had been functioning at the time of submitting the petition. Petitioner herein is a movie director. The 2nd respondent engaged "PUSH" a company of the petitioner, for coordinating the activities of her foundation. She also acted in some advertorials in association with "PUSH." An agreement was executed with “PUSH” in 2013. It was terminated in 2017 on account of differences developed among her and the petitioner. Till then, commission as per the agreement was being paid to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent acted in a movie, “Odiyan”, directed by the petitioner. During the shooting and later at the time of releasing and promotion, the petitioner engaged in defaming the 2nd respondent. In the shooting site, the petitioner used to talk to the 2nd respondent in an indecent manner and mentally harassed the 2nd respondent. He behaved so on account of the grudge against her. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was making efforts to ruin her goodwill and to harass her associates. She had entrusted several signed blank papers and letter heads to the petitioner when the agreement between them was in force. She apprehended that the petitioner may misuse them. She submitted an audio clip along with the petition revealing the role of the petitioner herein in moves targeting her. She alleged that she had been put to irreparable injury and loss on account of the malicious activities of the petitioner. She therefore requested to ensure appropriate actions to ensure return of the signed papers in the possession of the petitioner and also to prevent the petitioner from making comments tending to cause disrepute to her and to outrage her modesty.

6. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, when the 2nd respondent was interrogated by the police after registration of the crime, she revealed more incriminating facts, and