Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32083
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
M.A.VAHEED – Appellant
Versus
K.K.LATHIKA – Respondent
Crl.MC 370/2016
The court found that allegations of wrongful restraint and assault against legislators during a budget presentation did not meet the necessary legal criteria, leading to the quashing of the complaints.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 341 and 354 - Criminal complaints against Members of Legislative Assembly for obstructing the Finance Minister from presenting the Budget - Complaints quashed as no essential ingredients of offences made out - The court emphasized that the right to protest does not extend to wrongful restraint or assault. (Paras 10, 12, 35)
(B) Constitutional Law - Article 194 - Freedom of speech and assembly of legislators - The court clarified that such freedom does not protect criminal acts during assembly proceedings. (Paras 10, 26)
Facts of the case:
The complaints arose from an incident on 13.03.2015 in the Kerala Legislative Assembly where the complainants alleged obstruction and assault by fellow MLAs during a protest against the Finance Minister. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the complaints did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, leading to their quashing. (Paras 35)
Issues: The court addressed whether the actions of the accused constituted wrongful restraint or assault under IPC. (Paras 12, 26)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to protest does not encompass actions that obstruct constitutional duties or amount to assault, and emphasized the necessity of proving intent to outrage modesty for Section 354 IPC. (Paras 10, 26)
Result: Complaints quashed.
ORDER
These three Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are connected and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common order.
2. Petitioners and 1st respondents in these cases were Members of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. Petitioners in Crl.M.C. Nos.3178/2016 and 2111/2016 are the accused in C.C. No.1389/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st respondent in these cases is the complainant in the above cases. Petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 370/2016 is the 1st accused in C.C. No.1390/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st respondent in the above case is the complainant in that case. The alleged incident in these cases happened on 13.03.2015 in the Kerala Legislative Assembly.
3. I will narrate the facts in Crl.M.C. Nos.3178/2016 and 2111/2016 which are filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1389/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners are the accused in the above case. They were the members of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The gist of the allegation in the complaint filed against the petitioners by the 1st respondent in these cases which is produced as Annexure A in these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are as follows: The 1st respondent was an MLA representing Kovalam constituency and she is the wife of Dr. A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar. Her husband was elected as MLA from Kovalam on several occasions earlier and he was a Minister and also a former Member of Parliament. There was a political agitation under the leadership of the Left Democratic Front (LDF) demanding the resignation of the Finance Minister, Sri.K.M. Mani and they had demanded that Sri.K.M. Mani should not present the State Budget 2015-16. The State budget was scheduled to be presented in the Assembly at 9.00 AM on 13.03.2015. As directed by the LDF, in order to obstruct Sri.K.M. Mani from the presenting of Budget, the 1st respondent and fellow members of the Assembly were raising protest slogans in the Assembly. At about 8.45 a.m., the 1st respondent and five other women MLAs stood facing the door through which Ministers usually enter the house, raising slogans. At that time, the 1st respondent saw Sri.K.Sivadasan Nair, MLA (who is the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.3178/2016) and some other ruling party MLAs sitting in the back row of the Assembly. The 1st respondent alleges that, after a few minutes, Sri.K.Sivadasan Nair MLA approached her from behind, grabbed her waist with his right hand and exerted force. It is alleged that he pressed on her back with his knee and held her close to his body by applying force. The 1st respondent further claims that she escaped from Sri. Sivadasan Nair by using force. The 1st respondent further alleges that the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.2111/2016 who was standing nearby called her “ and yelled at her that 
According to the 1st respondent, the above alleged act of the 1st accused was with the intention to outrage her modesty and it is claimed that the 2nd accused aided the 1st accused in committing the alleged offence, by saying the words mentioned above and the same had caused her a feeling of disgust. The 1st respondent claims that the 1st and 2nd accused acted in unison in furtherance of their common intention. The 1st respondent claims that the Legislative Assembly is a public place, and as a Member of that Assembly, she has freedom of movement inside the House, and this was obstructed by the 1st accused. The 1st respondent also submitted a written complaint before the Speaker of the Assembly immediately after the incident and thereafter a detailed complaint was again made on 19.03.2015. However, no action was taken is the submission. The 1st respondent also approached the Director General of Police with a complaint on 23.03.2015. But no case was registered. Hence Annexure A complaint was filed.
4. According to the 1st respondent, the incident mentioned in the c
