The court determined that the allegations of stalking and abusive language did not meet the legal definitions required under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in CC No.1287/2014 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parappanangadi, arising from Crime No.176/2014 of Tirurangadi Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences under Section 354-D (1)(ii) and 294(b).

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 29.12.2013, while the defacto complainant was in a marriage house near his house, the accused stared her and on 28.01.2014 again he has done the very same thing and spit out on the floor and shown indecent gestures and also uttered abusive words. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. Annexure-A1 is the complaint. On basis of Annexure-A1, the first information report was registered. Annexure-A2 is the final report.

3. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out as alleged. Hence, this Crl.M.C.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

5. Eventhough, the notice was issued to the 2^nd respondent, who is the defacto complainant and she received notice, she refused to appear before this Court.

6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint is filed with malafide intention. It is submitted that petitioner's wife namely Mymoonath had occasion to file a complaint against the husband of the 2^nd respondent and her husband for trespass into their house and for using abusive words. Annexure-A3 is the complaint. Annexure-A3 was submitted on 07.11.2013 and an investigation was conducted by the police, and 2^nd respondent and her husband was summoned by the police. Thereafter, the present complaint is filed is the submission. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations, in Annexures-A1 and A2 are accepted, no offence is made out. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner are all matters of evidence, and the same is to raised before the trial court.

7. This Court perused Annexures-A1 and A2. A perusal of Annexure-A1 would show that according to 2^nd respondent, her husband and the petitioner are on inimical terms and whenever she go for her work, the petitioner used to use abusive words and wrong gestures. It is also stated that, the petitioner used to stare at her and even used to spit out to the floor. It is also stated that the petitioner filed false complaint against the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. The alleged abusive words used by the petitioner is not stated in complaint or final report. The first offence alleged is under Section 354-D (1)(ii). Section 354-D (1)(ii) says that any man, who monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking. Even if the entire allegations in Annexures-A1 and A2 are accepted, there is no such allegation against the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the offence under Section 354-D (1)(ii) of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted.

8. The other offence is under Section 294 (b) of the Indian Penal Code . As I mentioned earlier, the alleged abusive words, used by the petitioner is not mentioned either in Annexure-A1 or in Annexure-A2 final report. The ingredients of (b) is considered by this Court and Apex Court.

9. The Apex Court in Apoorva Arora v. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) [2024 KHC Online 6153] considered the meaning of obscenity. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment.

“34. From a plain reading of Section 67 and the material that is characterised as ‘obscene’ therein, it is clear that the High Court posed the wrong question, and it has naturally arrived at a wrong answer. At the outset, the enquiry under Section 292 of the IPC or under Section 67 of the IT Act does not hinge on whether the language or words are decent, or whether they are commonly used in the country. Rather, from the plain language of the provision, the inquiry is