Back
quashes case against A.T. George, rules allegations fail to constitute IPC offences
The has the criminal proceedings against former Congress MLA A.T. George in connection with the 2015 ruckus. Justice C.S. Dias held that the specific allegations against George—that he hit complainant K.K. Lathika on her back with his elbow—did not satisfy the of () or 354 () of the .
A Political Tussle in the Assembly
The case stemmed from the chaotic budget session of , when opposition LDF MLAs, including Lathika, staged a protest demanding the resignation of then Finance Minister K.M. Mani over bar bribery allegations. During the commotion, Watch and Ward personnel attempted to remove the protesters. According to the complaint, first accused M.A. Vaheed restrained, touched, and attempted to push Lathika to the floor. George was alleged to have struck her on the back below the neck with his elbow, causing her to collapse and be taken to hospital.
The Magistrate took only of and 354 read with , and had earlier deleted . This Court had previously proceedings against Vaheed by Annexure A5 common order. George then moved under seeking , arguing the complaint was politically motivated and the allegations did not constitute the charged offences.
The Specific Allegation: An Elbow to the Back
While Lathika alleged general obstruction, the specific overt act against George was limited to striking her with his elbow. The Court observed that this act, even if accepted in its entirety, did not disclose any element of (Section 341) or an intention to outrage modesty (). Critically, no charge for causing hurt had been framed.
The Court noted:
"The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained merely because an allegation of an
has been made when no corresponding offence has been charged or made out."
Why and 354 Did Not Apply
Justice C.S. Dias applied the from and , which require courts to examine whether disclose the of alleged offences. The judgment clarified:
"The specific allegation against the petitioner, namely, that he hit the 2nd respondent on her back with his elbow, does not constitute the
of
under Section 341 or outraging the modesty of a woman under
of the IPC."
The Court distinguished this from Vaheed's case, but emphasised that an led to the same conclusion: no offence was made out.
Beyond : Independent Finding
Although the petitioner sought with the already- proceedings against Vaheed, the Court went further. It stated:
"Quite apart from
, the allegations specifically and substantively attributed to the petitioner, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offences charged against him; nor is there a
in the complaint to attract
."
This independent reasoning insulated the order from any challenge based on differing allegations. The Court rejected the notion that an allegation alone could salvage the prosecution.
Final Verdict: Case
The High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and Annexure A1 complaint and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1390/2015 insofar as they relate to A.T. George. The decision marks the final chapter for Congress MLAs in this case, as similar relief had earlier been granted to M.A. Vaheed, Dominic Presentation, and K. Sivadasan Nair.
Reacting to the verdict, George called it a
"fitting reply to the CPM ploy to file fake cases,"
adding that visual evidence showed LDF MLAs crossing to the treasury side. The ruling reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings cannot continue when allegations, even if true, do not fall within the legal definition of the offences charged.
