SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
ALBIN ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 8814 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.AKHIL K.MADHAV
For the Respondents: SRI.ABU MATHEW, SRI.AJU MATHEW

The court clarifies that allegations involving private incidents do not qualify under public offense statutes, allowing partial quashing of inappropriate charges.

Headnote:The petitioners, accused in a criminal case, need to quash proceedings under Section 294(b) IPC while the charges under Sections 354 and 323 r/w 34 IPC remain valid as per factual allegations. The Court observed that the incident occurred in a private bedroom, exempting public place assertions. The dismissal and partial allowance reflect a nuanced interpretation of IPC applicable to assault and indignation without public witness.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case involving allegations against petitioners. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's observations on the applicability of ipc sections. (Para 4)
3. final decision on charges and allowances. (Para 5)

SR.PP-SRI.A.VIPIN NARAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 21st day of January, 2026 Petitioners who are the accused persons 1 to 5 in C.C.No.201/2020 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, arising out of Crime No.745/2019 of Aranmula police station, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing all further proceedings against them. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 354 , 294(b), 323 r/w 34 IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that on 16.05.2019 at about 9 p.m., inside the bedroom of ‘Chembarathi veedu’ in ward no.13 of Mallapuzhasery Panchayat, the 1st accused voluntarily caused hurt to CW1, the 2nd accused abused her in filthy words and voluntarily caused hurt to her and insulted her modesty. The accused persons 4 & 5 abused the defacto complainant in filthy words and the 3rd accused locked the door from inside to restrain the defacto complainant from escaping from there.

3. When the matter was taken up for arguments, there was no representation for the petitioner.

4. In the order dated 12.12.2022, at the time of submission, this Court observed that “There are specific allegations to attract the ingredients of offences under Sections 354 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC . However, the place of incident is inside the house which is not a public place and hence, Section 294 (b) of is not prima facie attracted.” In the above circumstances, this Crl.M.C was admitted only as far as (b) of alone is concerned.

5. On a perusal of the FI Statement, it is revealed that the offence under Section 354 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC are made out and at the same time since the abusive words were not specified and the incident occurred inside a bed room away from the public view, the offence under Section 294 (b) is not made out. In the above circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed in part as follows;-

The prayer with respect to the offence under Section 294 (b) IPC alone is allowed and the Crl.M.C. with respect to the offence under Section 354 and 323 r/w 34 of is dismissed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top