SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

WEDNESDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 6562 of 2018

CRIME NO. 51/2018 OF Thankamani Police Station , Idukki

PETITIONER:

MANOJ JOSE

AGED 39 YEARS

AZHAKATHU HOUSE, CHEMBAKAPPARA PO, ERATTAYAR VILLAGE,

IDUKKI DISTRICT

BY ADVS.

SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN

SRI.ARUN LUCKOSE ABRAHAM

RESPONDENTS:

1

ANIL KUMAR,

S/O DAMODARAN, PUNNAKKAL HOUSE, CHEMBAKAPPARA PO,

ERATTAYAR VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK PIN 685 514

2

STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF

KERALA, ERNKUALM-682 031

SR PP C S. HRITHWIK.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

14.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2.

The prayer in this Crl. M.C is to quash the

proceedings in Crime No.51 of 2018 of Thankamani

Police Station registered for the offences under

Crl.MC.No. 6562 of 2018 2

Sections 294(b) and 506 IPC and Section 67 of the

Information Technology Act. The case was registered

on the complaint filed by the first respondent that

the petitioner made some postings in a face book

account, which contained obscene matter and

threatening words. The investigating officer sent a

report to the Magistrate stating that the petitioner

is the accused. The proceedings are sought to be

quashed on the ground that the facts of the case do

not attract any of the offences.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4.

I have perused the case diary. In the

complaint filed by the first respondent the

statements which allegedly attract Section 294(b) IPC

or Section 67 of the Information Technology Act do

not find a place. A copy of the postings made on the

face book account are seen in the case diary. They

are only defamatory statements. They are not obscene

words or statement. To attract Section 294(b) IPC

Crl.MC.No. 6562 of 2018 3

the accused must have uttered obscene words. To

attract Section 67 Information Technology Act the

statements should be lascivious or it should appeal

to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as

to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are

likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances,

to read, see or hear the matter. So neither Section

294(b) IPC, nor Section 67 of the Information

Technology Act is attracted. The offence under

Section 506 IPC is a non cognizable offence. The

proceedings are liable to be quashed.

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The

proceedings in Crime No.51 of 2018 of Thankamani

Police Station are quashed.

Sd/-

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

JUDGE

pm

Crl.MC.No. 6562 of 2018 4

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE -A

A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME

NO.51/2018 OF THE THANKAMANI POLICE

STATION

ANNEXURE-B

A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED

20.01.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST

RESPONDENT

ANNEXURE-C

A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2018

ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE

CHIEF,IDUKKI

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top