IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN THURSDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 14TH BHADRA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 1239 OF 2023 CRIME NO.1305/2022 OF Thampanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

K.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 67 YEARS, KANHIRATTU HOUSE, KANNUKARA(P.O), ONCHIYAM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673102 BY ADVS.

D.ARUN BOSE K.VISWAN SOORAJ S RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

2 JOICY JOY AGED 29 YEARS JOICY JOY, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O SISILY AMMA JOY, SIVAJI SAFFAIR, FLAT NO. E8, NEAR SBI GUEST HOUSE, JAWAHAR NAGAR, SASTHAMANGALAM, THRIRUVANATHAPURAM, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 695010 BY ADVS.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Bonny Benny BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.(K/000331/2019)

OTHER PRESENT:

PP M P PRASANTH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

05.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

A.BADHARUDEEN J.

-------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No.1239 of 2023 ---------------------------------

Dated this the 5^th day of September 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Miscellaneous case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, to quash all further proceedings arising out of FIR in Crime No.1305/2022 of Tampanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing for the de facto complainant.

3. Prosecution allegation is that on 9/11/2021, the accused, who is none other than the father of one Sumaij, who is a friend of the de facto complainant, invited her to Safire Residency, Trivandrum on the premise of discussing about the marriage between Sumaij and the de facto complainant. After discussion, when Sumaij and mother went outside, the petitioner caught hold of her hand and belly and thereby attempted to outrage her modesty. On this premise it is alleged that the accused committed offences under Sections 354A,354 and 506 IPC. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, now Sumaij and the de facto complainant were married and have been living together as husband and wife. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the allegations in the FIR read along with FIS given by the de facto complainant and on analysing the manner in which the offences alleged to have committed by the accused, the ingredients to attract offences under Section 354A, 354 and 506 IPC., not at all made out. It is also submitted that the petitioner/accused had hesitation in the matter of solemnization of marriage between his son and the petitioner since they hail from different community and the de facto complainant has grudge towards the petitioner on this count. Accordingly, quashment has been pressed into by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

5. According to the learned Counsel for the de facto complainant, going by the allegations, it is apparent that, prima facie, offences are made out and on completing investigation, now final report was also filed. Therefore, the matter could not be quashed.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor shared the arguments of the learned Counsel for the de facto complainant while opposing the quashment prayer .

7. In order to address the rival submissions, ingredients which are necessary to attract offences under Sections 354, 354A and 506 IPC.are to be scrutinized. Thus it is apposite to refer the provisions and the same are extracted as follows:

“354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty : Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

354-A: Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment-(1). A man committed any of the following acts-

(i)