Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55567
KERALA HIGH COURT
G. GIRISH, J
Jahangeer P. T. v. State of Kerala
C.C.No.947 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners:[Counsel for petitioner]
For the Respondents: [Learned Public Prosecutor]
Prosecution for offences under S.294(b) IPC and S.120(o) Kerala Police Act is invalid without necessary permission and does not apply to private communications.
Headnote:The petitioner faces prosecution under S.294(b) IPC and S.120(o) of Kerala Police Act, 2011 due to alleged verbal abuse via telephone. The court found that a private phone call does not constitute an offence under S.294(b), and that prosecution for S.120(o) was invalid due to lack of required permissions from the Jurisdictional Magistrate, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. private telephone abuse does not establish offence under ipc. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. lack of required permissions invalidates investigation under non-cognizable offence. (Para 5) |
1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.947 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery. He faces prosecution for the commission of offence under S.294(b) IPC and S.120(o) of Kerala Police Act , 2011. The prosecution case is that on 19.06.2016, at about 11.53 pm, the petitioner called the defacto complainant over telephone and resorted to verbal abuse by uttering filthy language, causing mental pain to the defacto complainant. The case has been registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Puthencruz, on the basis of the complaint preferred by the defacto complainant. After the completion of the investigation, the Final Report has been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery, alleging the commission of the offence under S.294(b) and S.120(o) of the .
2. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that none of the offences alleged in the Final Report are attracted even if the entire accusations are accepted as such.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner called the defacto complainant over telephone at about 11.53 pm on 19.06.2016, and resorted to verbal abuse by uttering filthy language. The motive for the above act is said to be the bickerings between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, in connection with the Facebook posts over current issues.
5. Having regard to the nature of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, it is not possible to say that the offence under S.294(b) IPC is attracted. This is due to the reason that a private telephone call between the petitioner and the defacto complainant will not attract the necessary ingredient of S.294(b) , as per which the offender has to utter the objectionable words in or near any public place.
