Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 42420
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
...... – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1662 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ROSHIN IPE, JOSEPH SASTHAMANGALAM, S. AJITHKUMAR(K/430/1983)
For the Respondents: SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court held that prima facie evidence exists to support charges of trafficking and sexual harassment, warranting a full trial.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354A(1)(ii) and 370(1)(b) - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioner sought to quash charges related to sexual harassment and trafficking - Allegations primarily involved demands for sexual favors while ensuring the complainant's presence during an official meeting in Chennai - The court found prima facie evidence of both charges warranting trial. (Paras 4, 10, 16)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Scope - The court emphasized that petitions under Section 482 cannot overlook prima facie evidence indicating potential offenses warranting a formal trial. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that while arranging an official visit, the accused coerced her to stay with him, demanding sexual favors.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld prior orders dismissing the discharge petitions by affirming that prima facie offenses under Sections 370(1)(b) and 354A(1)(ii) are established.
Issues: Whether the allegations sufficiently meet the legal threshold to warrant prosecution for trafficking and sexual harassment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court detailed that the provided allegations met the criteria under the IPC for both trafficking and sexual harassment, justifying the ongoing proceedings.
Result: The petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of trafficking and sexual harassment require trial. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. ingredients under sections 370 and 354a ipc detailed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. prima facie evidence supports trial for established charges. (Para 12 , 16) |
| 4. petition for quashment denied. (Para 18 , 19) |
ORDER
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2024
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short hereinafter), by the accused, in Crime No.975/2019 of Ernakulam North Police Station, now pending as S.C.No.736/2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court-II, Ernakulam, to quash the entire proceedings.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents.
3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A (1)(ii) and 370(1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC for short hereinafter) by the accused.
4. While seeking quashment of this proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that going by the prosecution allegations, none of the offences alleged would attract prima facie. It is also submitted that as per Annexure 5 order in Crl.M.P.No.96/2020, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner, which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, as per Annexure 6 order in Crl.R.P.No.35/2021. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the defacto complainant reached Chennai for attending an official meeting, it could not be held that the accused herein trafficked her for the purpose of exploitation by recruiting, transporting, harbouring, transferring or in other manner dealt under Section 370 (1) of IPC so as to attract the said offence. It is also pointed out that even though there is an allegation that the accused demanded the defacto complainant to share her room, the same also would not by itself be sufficient to attract offence under Section 354A (1)(ii) of .
5. Opposing the quashment prayer, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that prima facie offences under Section 370 (1)(b) as well as under Section 354A (1)(ii) of IPC would attract and thereby the learned Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the plea for discharge and the Sessions Judge confirmed the same by Annexure 5 and Annexure 6 orders. Since prosecution materials would substantiate the offences prima facie, the matter would require trial and the quashment prayer would fail.
6. Assimilating the facts of this case, this Crime was registered pursuant to a complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the SHO, Central Police Station, Ernakulam. As per the complaint, the allegation is that while the defacto complainant was working as the General Manager of M/s.Mathew Associates Consultants (P) Ltd., Ernakulam, the accused who had been working as the Managing Director, committed the alleged offences on 31.05.2019.
7. Addressing the argument tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to consider the ingredients to attract offence under Section 370 (1) of IPC . (1) of provides as under;
370. Trafficking of person.—(1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by—
First.—using threats, or
Secondly.—using force, or any other form of coercion, or
Thirdly.—by abduction, or
Fourthly.—by practising fraud, or deception, or
Fifthly.—by abuse of power, or
Sixthly.— by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking Explanation 1.—The expression "exploitation" shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs.
