Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 79762
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
ANTONY THOMAS, LUCY THOMAS, M.L. AUGUSTHY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 4721 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
For the Respondents: RANJIT GEORGE - SR. PP
Intent to humiliate is essential under Section 92(a) of the Act, and mere complaints challenging competence do not suffice.
Headnote:The court examined the allegations under Sections 89 and 92 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioners contended that their complaints were made in good faith, challenging the competence of the 2nd respondent, and not with intent to humiliate. The court found that no evidence substantiated an intent to humiliate, as required under Section 92(a) of the Act. Thus, the court quashed proceedings against the petitioners due to a lack of criminal liability under the cited provisions.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 4721 OF 2019 [TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN CMP NO.170/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KATTAPPANA WHICH IS PENDING AS C.P.NO.15/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, KATTAPPANA]
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 ANTONY THOMAS,AGED 67 YEARS KULATHINAL HOUSE, NARIYAMPARA P.O, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE.
2 LUCY THOMAS, AGED 62 YEARS W/O. ANTONY THOMAS, KULATHINAL HOUSE, NARIYAMPARA P.O, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE. 3 M.L. AUGUSTHY AGED 67 YEARS MAMPLAL HOUSE, KALTHOTTY P.O, KANCHIYAR VILLAGE.
BY ADV THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031
2 ANN MARY LOUIS, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. JACOB, ST. JOHN'S STAFF QUARTERS, KATTAPPANA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE-685 508 OTHER PRESENT:
R1 BY ADV. RANJIT GEORGE - SR. PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
07.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.P.No.15/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Kattappana. The aforesaid case was registered based on a private complaint submitted by the 2nd respondent as C.M.P.No.170/2018 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 89 and 92 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Act’). The allegations in the complaint are as follows:
The 2nd respondent works as the Principal of St. John’s College of Nursing, Kattappana. She has a congenital visual disability of 40% of her eyes which is a benchmark disability as described under the Act. It is alleged that, the petitioners herein have obtained certain documents from the Kerala Public Service Commission relating to the applications and test results of the 2nd respondent under the Right to Information Act. After receiving the same, the petitioners have submitted various complaints before the University, P.S.C, Indian Nursing Council, Higher authorities of the hospital management etc., alleging that the 2nd respondent is not competent to hold the post of Principal in a nursing college. It is contended that on account of the same, the petitioner was subjected to humiliation and the same resulted in the loss of two job opportunities to her under the Government. The complaint was submitted in such circumstances alleging that the aforesaid acts of the petitioners amount to offences punishable under Sections 89 and 92 of the Act. This Crl.M.C. is filed praying for quashing all the further proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid crime.
2. Heard Sri. Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, Sri. Ranjit George, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Even though notice was served upon the 2nd respondent, there is no appearance for the 2nd respondent.
3. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that none of the offences alleged against the petitioners would be attracted even if the entire averments in Annexure-A1 complaint are taken at their face value. It is pointed out that even according to the averments in the complaint, the petitioners had submitted complaints before the authorities concerned challenging the competence of the 2nd respondent herein and there are no materials produced by the 2nd respondent indicating that the petitioners filed the aforesaid complaints with an intention to humiliate the 2nd respondent with respect to her disability. Therefore it was contended that the offences are not attracted
4. For considering the contentions of the petitioners, a perusal of Sections 89 and 92 of the Act are necessary which are extracted as hereunder:
“89. Punishment for contravention of provisions of Act or rules or regulations made thereunder.—
Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule made thereunder shal
