Remarks made to third parties do not constitute an offense under Section 509 IPC, as direct communication with the complainant is essential for establishing such charges.

ORDER

Dated this the 30^th day of September, 2024 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.475/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents, including the decisions of this Court in Sibi v. State of Kerala reported in2021 (1) KLT 749 andxxxx V. State of Kerala reported in2024 KHC Online 584 placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused herein committed offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC and the specific allegation is that the accused persons, with intention to insult the modesty of the complainant, made defamatory remarks in and out the premises of the flat building, where the accused and the defacto complainant have been residing, stating that the defacto complainant is a prostitute. Recording the statement of the victim, crime was registered and investigated. Thereafter, final report filed, alleging commission of offence punishable under r/w 34 of , for which cognizance also was taken by the Magistrate.

4. While canvassing quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioners pressed the point that even if the words alleged to be stated by the accused are defamatory, the same by itself would not attract offence under Section 509 of IPC . In this regard, he has placed the decision inSibi’s case (supra) wherein this Court held as under:

“In the instant case, the allegation is not that the petitioners/accused persons have uttered any word or made any sound or gesture, etc, to the wife of the 2^nd respondent, who is said to be the victim, with the intention to insult her modesty. The allegation is that the petitioners have sent derogatory and defamatory letters about the said woman to a third party (CW3). The said lady victim is mentioned as CW2 in Annexure-2 charge sheet. The said factual allegations, if true, may have disclosed offence as per S.500 of the IPC or S.501 of the which deals with defamation. The investigation agency has rightly understood that the offence as per section 500 or 501 of the cannot be the subject matter of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate on the basis of a police report/final report/charge sheet.

By no such imagination the act of the accused persons in sending derogatory or defamatory letters about the lady victim to a third person, even if it is assumed that the same is done with the intention to insult the modesty of the lady victim, cannot be subject matter of the offences under S.509 of the IPC . Hence, in the instant case none of the offences alleged in the impugned criminal proceedings including the one at Annexure -A2 court charge would lie in the instant case.”

5. The learned counsel also placed decision of this Court in Ramesh v. Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2021(1) KLT 735 to buttress his contention though the facts dealt therein are different from the facts of this case.

6. Inxxxx V. State of Kerala (supra), this Court analysed the ingredients to attract offence under Section 509 of IPC , after referring the decision of this Court inJoseph M.V. v. State of Kerala , reported in2024 KHC OnLine 440, in paragraph No.11, which reads as under:

“11. In the decision in Joseph M.V. v. State of Kerala reported in [2024 KHC OnLine 440 : 2024 KER 36566], in paragraph Nos.11 to 13, this Court held as under:

“11. In order to bring home