Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 834 (KER)

Deepa v. State of Kerala

2024-07-10

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

body2024
ORDER : This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash the proceedings in Annexure-A final report which is now pending as CC No.1929/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery. The above case is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused abused the defacto complainant and his wife using filthy language and it was alleged that the petitioner had threatened that she will do away them. The alleged incident was taken place on 30.04.2013 at about 3.30 pm. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506 (ii) of the IPC is not made out. To consider the above contentions, it will be better to extract the relevant portion of the final report. 5. This Court in Latheef v. State of Kerala ( 2014 (2) KLT 987 = 2014 (2) KHC 604 ) considered the ingredients of Section 294(b) IPC. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment. “5. Abusive words or humiliating words or defamatory words will not as such amount to obscenity as defined under the law. Of course there is no doubt that the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner are in fact abusive and humiliating. But to make it obscene, punishable under S.294(b) IPC it must satisfy the definition of obscenity. S.294 IPC does not define obscenity. Being a continuation of the subject dealt with under S.292 IPC the definition of obscenity under 292(1) IPC can be applied in a prosecution under S.294 IPC also. To make punishable, the alleged words must be in a sense lascivious, or it must appeal to the prurient interest, or will deprave and corrupt persons. S.294 IPC does not define obscenity. Being a continuation of the subject dealt with under S.292 IPC the definition of obscenity under 292(1) IPC can be applied in a prosecution under S.294 IPC also. To make punishable, the alleged words must be in a sense lascivious, or it must appeal to the prurient interest, or will deprave and corrupt persons. In P.T. Chacko v. Nainan Chacko reported in ( 1967 KLT 799 = 1967 KHC 231) this Court held that, “the test of obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.” In Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala reported in ( 2008 (2) KLT 745 = 2008 (1) KHC 812 : 2008 (1) KLD 339) this Court held thus, “in order to satisfy the test of obscenity, the words alleged to have been uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers.” Thus it is quite clear that, to make obscene the alleged words must involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or the words must have the effect of depraving persons, and defiling morals by sex appeal or lustful desires. I find that the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner in this case are really abusive and humiliating, but those words cannot be said to be obscene. As already stated, every abusive word or every humiliating word cannot, by itself, be said to be obscene as defined under the Indian Penal Code. I find that the conviction against the revision petitioner under S.294(b) IPC in this case, on the basis of the above words alleged to have been used by him, is liable to be set aside, and the revision petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner under S.294(b) IPC in ST No.3810/1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittoor are set aside, on the finding in revision that the revision petitioner is not guilty of the offence punishable under S.294(b) IPC. The revision petitioner will stand released from prosecution on acquittal, and the bail bond executed by him will stand discharged.”(underline supplied) 6. The revision petitioner will stand released from prosecution on acquittal, and the bail bond executed by him will stand discharged.”(underline supplied) 6. Even if the entire allegations in the final report filed against the petitioner are accepted, the offence under Section 294(b) is not attracted. 7. As far as Section 506 is concerned, the Apex Court considered the matter in detail in Manik Taneja and anr. v. State of Karnataka and anr. (2015 KHC 4046). The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder: “13. S.506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in S.503 IPC is as under: "503. Criminal Intimidation.— Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.— A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this Section." 14. A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. 15. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this Section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in S.503 IPC.” (underline supplied) 8. Even if the entire allegations in the final report are accepted, the offence under Section 506 is not attracted. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution against the petitioner is unsustainable. Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.1929/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery arising from Crime No.1396/2013 of Kalamassery Police Station are quashed.