IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 5402 OF 2022 CRIME NO.1202/2019 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM TO QUASH/SET ASIDE ANNEXURE A2 FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO.1146 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIPUNITHURA PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

M.V. JOSEPH, AGED 61 YEARS, MULAVUKAD HOUSE, KUREEKKAD P.O, KUREEKKAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PIN - 682305 BY ADVS.

ABRAHAM P.GEORGE M.SANTHY JOHNY THOMAS C.A.ANAS M.B.RATHEESH JOSE K.V.

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031.

2 ANJU AGED 36 YEARS, W/O PRAVEEN KUMAR, VADAPPURATH HOUSE, NEAR ST. THOMAS SUNDAY SCHOOL, PAINUMKAL PARA, THALAKODU P.O, KANAYANNUR VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PIN – 686693.

SRI.RENJITH GEORGE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

'C.R.'

ORDER

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2024 This Crl.M.C. has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the prayers in the petition are as under:-

a) Call for the entire records leading to Annexure-A2 final report/charge sheet in C.C. No.1146/2019 in the file of the Hon'ble Court below- Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura, quash/set aside the same and all the proceedings arising out of the same in the interest of justice.

b) Grant such other reliefs which are prayed and to be deem fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.

3. Perused the records along with the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. In this crime, the concise allegation is that when the de-facto complainant visited the office of BSNL in Tripunithura, on 26.06.2019, for the purpose of converting her micro sim to nano type to suit her mobile phone vide; No.8547312193, and when she approached the male staff (accused herein) for this purpose, the accused not properly done the work. When the de- facto complainant informed the same, the accused demanded her to pay Rs.100/- and to purchase a new sim. The said proposal was not acceptable to the de-facto complainant. At this juncture, the accused commented that "ഒര(cid:3)മ(cid:5)ത(cid:7)ര(cid:7) വ(cid:10)ല(cid:7)യ(cid:7)ൽ ഇര(cid:7)ക(cid:3)ന പ(cid:5)മ(cid:7)ന(cid:20) എട(cid:3)ത(cid:3) ഞ(cid:5)ൻ മവ(cid:26)ടത(cid:27) (cid:10)ച വപ(cid:5)നലയ(cid:5)യവ(cid:29)(cid:5)". Hearing the same the de facto complainant quarreled with accused. According to the defacto complainant, the said comment was made by the accused with intention to insult the de-facto complainant. Thus the accused alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. While pressing for quashing the proceedings as prayed for, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no ingredients to attract an offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code is made out by the prosecution records. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed two decisions of this Court to contend that simply because the complainant thought that the words uttered by the accused carried some other meaning it could not be said that the accused to be put to trial, on alleging commission of offence punishable under Section

509 of IPC.

6. The decisions placed are; (1) Fr. Mathew Pulimoottil Episcopa v. State of Kerala [2014 (2) KLT 1] and (2) Basheer v. State of Kerala [2014 (4) SN 65 (C. No.81)]. Referring to the above decisions, it is argued that the subject of insult for a prosecution under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code must be the modesty of woman and not the woman as such.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that going by the comments, prima facie, the accused intended to intrude upon the privacy of the defacto complainant and thus the offence is made out.

8.