Insufficient evidence for voyeurism and related charges leads to quashing of criminal proceedings.

ORDER

Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C No.555/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid case.

2. The learned Magistrate initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners for the commission of offences under Sections 354C and 120B I.P.C upon a private complaint filed by the second respondent. The allegation against the petitioners is that they committed the offence of voyeurism envisaged under Section 354C I.P.C by taking the photograph of the second respondent while she, after having bath, was laying clothes for drying in a clothes-line near a shed in front of her house. The petitioners, along with a photographer, are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offence at about 11:00 a.m on 09.09.2015. According to the second respondent, the aforesaid act of the petitioners also constituted the offence under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act .

3. Originally, the second respondent had filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate contending that the first petitioner, along with a photographer, who has been arraigned as the 4th accused, had taken her photograph pursuant to the conspiracy hatched with the other accused. The aforesaid complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the S.H.O of Police, Poovar under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for investigation and report. The Inspector of Police, Poovar took over the investigation in the said case since the first petitioner was said to be working in the Police Department. After the completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, Poovar filed a refer report before the learned Magistrate stating that the complaint was found to be false. It was further stated in the above refer report that the complainant/second respondent nurtured enmity with the petitioners since the construction of a lodge building by the complainant and her husband, in violation of the Building Rules, was stayed by the local Panchayat on the basis of a complaint preferred by the petitioners. It was also stated in that refer report that the 4th accused, who was a Press Photographer, had taken the photos of that building at 4:00 p.m on 09.09.2015, and a news item was published in the Kerala Kaumudi daily of 17.09.2015 about the unauthorised building construction made by the complainant and her husband.

4. The complainant again approached the learned Magistrate for passing orders for a direction to conduct detailed investigation under the supervision of the court in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 (1) KLT 724]. Pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Magistrate, the Inspector of Police conducted a detailed investigation and submitted a report reiterating his previous finding that the complaint is false. It is against the above report of the Inspector of Police, Poovar, that the complainant preferred a protest complaint upon which the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 354C and 120B I.P.C after the examination of the complainant and two witnesses.

5. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that they are totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against them. It is further stated that none of the offences alleged against the petitioners are brought out in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the second respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

7. As already stated above, the