Essential ingredients for offences under Sections 294(b) and 509 IPC were not demonstrated, leading to quashing of proceedings.

ORDER :

SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.

1. This Crl.M.C. is filed seeking to quash Annexures A1 (FIR), A3 (Final Report) and all further proceedings in C.C.No.767 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Kottayam.

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.767 of 2019, which arose from Crime No.306 of 2019 registered by the Kottayam West Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 294 (b) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner had on 08.02.2019 between 9.35 P.M. and 9.36 P.M. posted an obscene message explicitly naming the de facto complainant, in an official WhatsApp group of the Company in which the de facto complainant was a former employee, thereby committing the offences alleged.

4. Heard Sri.Naveen Thomas, Advocate for the petitioner and Smt.Maya M.N., learned Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent. In spite of service, there was no appearance for the 2^nd respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR, Final Report and all further proceedings in the CC are fit to be quashed since no offence under Section 294 (b) or Section 509 of the IPC are revealed therefrom. The 2ndrespondent, it is submitted, was not even a member of the official WhatsApp group named “RRL FM TEAM” of the relevant Company when the said messages were allegedly posted therein. Even as per Annexure A2, First Information Statement of the 2ndrespondent, the said messages were noted by her only when CW4, a former colleague of hers, took a screenshot of the same and forwarded it to her husband (CW2). The petitioner contended that even if the allegations in Annexures A1, A2 and A3 are accepted in their entirety, they do not constitute any offences under Sections 294 (b) and 509 as they lack the necessary ingredients. In order to constitute an offence under 294 (b), the obscene act must be made in a public place and it should create annoyance to the public. Since the alleged messages were sent in an official WhatsApp group of a Company, which is a closed group with no access to the public, it cannot be treated as one committed in a public place. Further, the messages as such do not reveal any obscene content, as they have not created any annoyance to the public which is a mandatory ingredient. Since the de facto complainant was not a member of the group at the time when the relevant message was alleged to have been posted none of the essential elements to attract are present. Reliance is placed in this respect on the dictum laid down in James Jose v. State of Kerala [2019 (3) KHC 531] ,Capt. Noble Pereira v. State of Kerala [2024 (5) KHC 607];Aliyar K.P. v. State of Kerala[2024 KHC 759]; Aji Raj C.A v. State of Kerala and another[2020 KHC 54] and Jahangeer P.T. v. State of Kerala[2025 KHC 1687].

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions and submitted that the messages sent in the official WhatsApp group satisfies the mandates of Section 294 (b) IPC as the WhatsApp group has to be treated as a public place, especially since there are many other members in the group. The messages sent by the petitioner in the group had created annoyance to the other members as it has obscene content which outrages the modesty of a woman viz. the 2ndrespondent whose name had been explicitly stated therein. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner was removed from the WhatsApp group by the admin after the said messages were sent by him in the group and this action of the group admin clearly shows that the messages sent in the group had created an annoyance to others in the gro