The intention to insult the modesty of a woman is required to establish an offence under Section 509 IPC, which was not evidenced in this case.

ORDER

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2026 The accused in C.C.No.695/2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur arising out of Crime No.883/2023 of the Ulikkal Police Station, Kannur filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 ( BNSS ) praying for quashing all further proceedings against her. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 509 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ( IPC ) and 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act , 2011 (KP Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 25.07.2023 and

26.07.2023, the accused sent WhatsApp messages to the husband of 3^rd respondent against his wife/de facto complainant insulting her modesty and also sent such messages through WhatsApp, Facebook, messenger etc. to the de facto complainant and her husband.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire allegations raised against the petitioner are believed as such, the same will not amount to the offences punishable under Sections 509 of the IPC and Section 120 (o) of the KP Act.

Therefore, she prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Petitioner's request was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Though notice was served on the 3^rd respondent/de facto complainant, she did not turn up.

6. On a perusal of the FI Statement it can be seen that the de facto complainant went to the residence of the petitioner for taking a car as instructed by her husband. At that time, there was some altercation between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. It is alleged that thereafter on 25.07.2023 and 26.07.2023, the petitioner sent WhatsApp messages to the husband of the de facto complainant. The words allegedly used in the said message are “ന(cid:2)ന(cid:4) ന(cid:6)ണമ(cid:2)ളന(cid:10)ന (cid:6)റയന ശവ(cid:17), കഴ(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:2)ൽ ന(cid:2)ന(cid:17) എഴനനറti വന ആ ന(cid:27)ത(cid:17) ന(cid:6)(cid:29)ലന(cid:31)". In the additional statement given by the de facto complainant the word "കഴനവറ!ന" ന#(cid:29)ന$ " is also seen used.

7. Relying upon the definition of Sections 509 IPC as well as the decision of this Court in Abhijeet J.K. vs. State of Kerala and Ors. /b>. [2020 (2) KHC 55] the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the words allegedly used by the petitioner do not make out an offence punishable under Section 509 of the . 8. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, insult to the modesty of a woman is an essential ingredient of an offence punishable under . The crux of the offence is the intention to insult the modesty of a woman. The modesty of a woman is related to her sex. Only if the word used is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman, the same will amount to the offence punishable under . In other words, an act merely insulting a woman is not sufficient to attract the offence under . The words allegedly used by the petitioner when evaluated in the above context, makes it clear that though those words are insulting to the de facto complainant, it cannot be stated that they are insulting the modesty of the de facto complainant.

9. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not make out the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC .

10. Section 120 (o) of the KP Act states that if any person causing, through any means of communication, a nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a messenger, shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or wi