Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2994
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 4729/2021
P. MOHAMED SABAH, VINAY VIJAY SHANKER, SRI M P PRASANTH
The court ruled that prima facie evidence supported the allegations of sexual harassment and insulting modesty, justifying the continuation of criminal proceedings under IPC and KP Act.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 354A(1)(iv) and 509 - Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 120(o) - Quashment of criminal proceedings - Allegations of sexual harassment and insulting modesty - Court found prima facie evidence of offences under IPC and KP Act - The court emphasized that quashment is only permissible when prosecution materials do not constitute an offence. (Paras 4, 6, 10, 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - The court reiterated that quashment of proceedings can occur only when the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence to support the alleged offences. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with making sexually coloured remarks and sending inappropriate messages to the defacto complainant, who was a colleague at KSEB Ltd. The allegations included past incidents of harassment and inappropriate behavior.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused, warranting the dismissal of the quashment application.
Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations constituted offences under IPC and KP Act and if the prosecution materials were sufficient to proceed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations met the necessary criteria for offences under Sections 354A and 509 of IPC and Section 120(o) of the KP Act, thus quashment was not warranted.
Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed.
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the sole accused in Crime No.2607 of 2017 of Aluva Police Station, Ernakulam district, seeking the following reliefs
“(i) Call for the records with regard to Annexure-1 FIR and Annexure-2 final report in Crime No.2607 of 2017 of Aluva Police Station, Ernakulam district, and quash the same as illegal; and
(ii) Such other order or decision which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Also heard the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, who filed a counter affidavit along with documents.
3. In this matter, initially crime was registered alleging commission of offences, punishable under Section 354A (1)(iv) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (` IPC ' for short), by the accused. After investigation, final report was filed alleging commission of offences punishable under (1)(iv) and 509 of as well as under Section 120 of the Kerala Police Act , 2011 (`KP Act’, for short). The prosecution allegation is that the accused with intention to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant, made sexually coloured remarks and overtures at about 2.30 hours on 31.03.2017 while the defacto complainant was working at the Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (`KSEB Ltd.’ for short). The specific allegation is that the accused commented that the body structure of the defacto complainant was fine and thereafter on 15.6.2017, 17.06.201720 and 20.06.2017, the accused sent messages with sexual overtures to the mobile number of the defacto complainant from his mobile number.
4. While pressing quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that, prima facie, the prosecution materials do not constitute ingredients to attract the offences alleged to be committed, by the petitioner. It is specifically pointed out that mere reference that a person has a nice body structure could not be attributed to sexually coloured remarks within the ambit of Section 354A (1)(iv) of IPC . Same is the position with regard to offence under Section 509 as well as Section 120 (o) of KP Act. Therefore, from the entire allegations, none of the offences is made out and therefore quashment prayer is liable to be allowed.
5. Vehemently opposing the quashment prayer, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the defacto complainant has been working as Senior Assistant in KSEB and the accused also was working as Sub Engineer of the Electric Section where the defacto complainant was working, though he retired as of now. In this connection, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent placed emphasis on Annexure R3(a), copy of identity card of the defacto complainant. It is pointed out by the 3rd respondent that during 2013, when the accused was working as Meter Reader, the accused subjected her to insult by using vulgar language among the co-workers in public platforms. Accordingly, as on 05.04.2013, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Executive Engineer, Electrical Section, as Annexure R3(b). As a sequel to Annexure R3(b) complaint, the accused was transferred to another section on 02.09.2013, after 5 months of filing the complaint. During 2016 also, the harassment of the accused continued in the form of making frequent voice calls and sending messages to the defacto complainant and when the defacto complainant blocked the number of the accused, he started to send messages to the defacto complainant by using alternate numbers by using abusive language and sending vulgour messages. In this connection, the defacto complainant filed complaint before the Vigilance Officer, KSEB Ltd., Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram, and copy of the same is Annexure R3(c). Despite filing of this complaint also, the accused continued his indecent behaviour towards the defa
