Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34456

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANU, J
SREEKUMAR MENON – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 1562/2020

Advocates:
S.RAJEEV, SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN, SRI.V.VINAY, SRI.D.FEROZE, SRI.ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN

The court established that mere allegations without sufficient evidence or intent do not constitute the offences of stalking, obscenity, or insulting modesty under the relevant legal provisions.

Headnote:
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 354D, 294(b), 509; Kerala Police Act Section 120(o) - The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, finding that the allegations did not meet the legal thresholds for stalking, obscenity, or insulting modesty as defined in the relevant sections.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the proceedings arising from a police FIR alleging offences under IPC and the Kerala Police Act, based on a complaint from an actress regarding harassment and defamation by the petitioner, a movie director.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations did not substantiate the offences under the cited sections, particularly noting the lack of intent to outrage modesty and the absence of necessary governmental sanction for prosecution of certain claims.
Issues: Whether the allegations against the petitioner under IPC Sections 354D, 294(b), 509, and Kerala Police Act Section 120(o) were sustainable in law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations did not meet the legal definitions required for the offences charged, emphasizing the necessity of intent and the requirement for governmental sanction for certain offences.
Final Decision: The Crl.M.C is allowed; proceedings quashed.

Judgement Key Points

Case Overview

Criminal Miscellaneous petition to quash FIR and proceedings in Crime No.1171/2019 of Thrissur East Police Station, now pending as CC No.1102/2020 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur. (!) (!) (!)
FIR registered based on complaint by 2nd respondent (actress) to State Police Chief alleging harassment, defamation, and mental harassment by petitioner (movie director) during movie "Odiyan" shoot, promotion, and due to prior business agreement termination with petitioner's company "PUSH". (!) (!) (!) (!)
Final report added Section 294(b) IPC based on 2nd respondent's police statement alleging petitioner used filthy word at Dubai Airport on 09.12.2018 in presence of others. (!) (!) (!)
Offences charged: IPC Sections 354D (stalking), 294(b) (obscene acts), 509 (insulting modesty); Kerala Police Act Section 120(o). (!) (!)
Stay on proceedings granted during pendency; no appearance by 2nd respondent despite notice. (!) (!)

Factual Background

2nd respondent engaged petitioner's company "PUSH" in 2013 for foundation activities and advertorials; agreement terminated in 2017 due to differences; commissions paid until then. (!)
Petitioner directed movie "Odiyan" starring 2nd respondent; allegations of indecent talk, mental harassment at shoot site (Palakkad, 2018), defamatory messages via Facebook/phone from April 2018, grudge over agreement termination. (!) (!)
2nd respondent apprehended misuse of signed blank papers/letterheads entrusted to petitioner; submitted audio clip. (!)
Incident at Dubai Airport (09.12.2018) not mentioned in original petition to Police Chief (dated 21.10.2019), delay of over 10 months; occurred outside India. (!)

Court's Analysis and Findings

Section 354D IPC (Stalking): Requires following/contacting woman repeatedly despite disinterest to foster personal interaction, or monitoring electronic communication; must reveal sexual interest or intent to outrage modesty. Not attracted here as parties were on bad terms with grudge; threats/abuse do not qualify. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Section 294(b) IPC (Obscene acts): Requires matter tending to deprave/corrupt minds open to immoral influences, causing annoyance to public. Filthy word at Dubai lacks this tendency (may be defamatory but not obscene); no Central Government sanction under CrPC Section 188 (or BNSS Section 208) for extra-territorial offence, required before trial. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Section 509 IPC (Insult to modesty): Requires intent to insult modesty or intrude privacy via word/gesture/object. Mere abusive/unpleasant words or disrepute without such intent insufficient; allegations via Facebook/phone do not meet threshold. (!) (!) (!)
Kerala Police Act Section 120(o): Not sustainable given failure of other charges. (!)

Decision

All proceedings quashed: No offences made out due to lack of required intent, ingredients, and procedural sanction. (!) (!)

ORDER

The challenge in this Crl.M.C is against the proceedings arising from Crime No.1171 of 2019 of Thrissur East Police Station. The said case was registered on the nd basis of a petition submitted by the 2 respondent to the State Police Chief on 21.10.2019. The State Police Chief forwarded the petition to the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, with a direction that the case should be investigated by the District Crime Branch under the personal supervision of the District Police Chief. The Station House Officer of Thrissur East Police Station thereafter registered FIR on 23.10.2019, alleging the offences under Sections 354D and 509 of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act , 2011 against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed this Crl.M.C praying to quash all further proceedings in the crime, on registration of the FIR. During the pendency of the Crl.M.C., police concluded the investigation and filed the final report. The case is now pending as C.C.No.1102 of 2020 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur. In the final report, offences under Sections 354D , 294(b), 509 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC for brevity), and Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act , are alleged.

3. The petitioner filed an application thereafter, seeking to alter the prayer in the Crl.M.C as to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No. 1102 of 2020, pending with the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur. The said application was allowed by order dated 21.12.2022 in Crl.M.Appln.No.2 of 2022. By an order in Crl.M.Appln.No.3 of 2022, the further proceedings in C.C.No.1102 of 2020 were stayed on the same day.

4. Though notice was duly served on the 2nd respondent and later intimation through police was also given, there is no appearance on her behalf.

5. Reading of the petition dated 21.10.2019 nd submitted by the 2 respondent to the State Police Chief reveals that her case stated in it was as follows:

The 2nd respondent is an actress, active in the movie field for more than two decades. A charitable organization named “Manju Warrier Foundation,” formed by her along with her parents, had been functioning at the time of submitting the petition. Petitioner herein is a movie director. The 2nd respondent engaged "PUSH" a company of the petitioner, for coordinating the activities of her foundation. She also acted in some advertorials in association with "PUSH." An agreement was executed with “PUSH” in 2013. It was terminated in 2017 on account of differences developed among her and the petitioner. Till then, commission as per the agreement was being paid to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent acted in a movie, “Odiyan”, directed by the petitioner. During the shooting and later at the time of releasing and promotion, the petitioner engaged in defaming the 2nd respondent. In the shooting site, the petitioner used to talk to the 2nd respondent in an indecent manner and mentally harassed the 2nd respondent. He behaved so on account of the grudge against her. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was making efforts to ruin her goodwill and to harass her associates. She had entrusted several signed blank papers and letter heads to the petitioner when the agreement between them was in force. She apprehended that the petitioner may misuse them. She submitted an audio clip along with the petition revealing the role of the petitioner herein in moves targeting her. She alleged that she had been put to irreparable injury and loss on account of the malicious activities of the petitioner. She therefore requested to ensure appropriate actions to ensure return of the signed papers in the possession of the petitioner and also to prevent the petitioner from making comments tending to cause disrepute to her and to outrage her modesty.

6. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, when nd the 2 respondent was interrogated by the police after registration of the crime, she revealed more incriminating facts, and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document