IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN MONDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 4161 OF 2023 CRIME NO.1295/2018 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM IN C.C. NO.197 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

ADV.R.PARAMESWARA IYER AGED 68 YEARS S/O P.RAMANATHAIYER,49/82,'GAYATHRI' VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682026 BY ADV SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENTS/STATE:

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

2 ANUPAMA ROY AGED 38 YEARS W/O ROY,MANNALIKKUDY HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR POST, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN - 683542 BY ADVS.

ADV.ANWAR C K K.S.SUMEESH(K/000703/2009)

PP - M P PRASANTH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

“C.R”

ORDER

Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2024 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No.197/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam. The petitioner herein is the accused in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available.

3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 509 and 506(1) of IPC. This crime was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant on 04.05.2018 before the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam, then forwarded to the Station House OfÏcer concerned. As per the complaint lodged, there is allegation that, on 17.04.2018 the accused herein had parked his car in front of the store run by the defacto complainant, obstructing the work in the store. When the defacto complainant requested to remove the car, the accused abused and shouted at the defacto complainant. Acting on the complaint, the crime was registered and after investigation Final Report also filed alleging the above said offences.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations are false and the petitioner is innocent. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by the complaint initially lodged, a copy of the same is produced as Annexure-A3, there is no mention regarding the words used by the accused to abuse the defacto complainant or how and why he shouted against the defacto complainant. Even though, additional statement of the defacto complainant also was recorded, nothing stated to attract offences punishable under Sections 509 and 506(1) of IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for quashment of the proceedings.

5. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, the allegations are serious and the matter would require trial. Therefore, the quashment prayer cannot be considered.

6. While appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to address the essentials required to constitute offences punishable under Sections 509 and 506(i) of IPC.

7. Coming to Section 509 of IPC, it is provided that whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman [shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine.

8. Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘BNS’ for short], is the provision analogous to Section 509 of IPC. The same is as under:

79. Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman.- Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any s