ANTONY THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.P.No.15/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Kattappana. The aforesaid case was registered based on a private complaint submitted by the 2nd respondent as C.M.P.No.170/2018 alleging the offences punishable under Ss. 89 and 92 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short 'the Act'). The allegations in the complaint are as follows: The 2nd respondent works as the Principal of St. John's College of Nursing, Kattappana. She has a congenital visual disability of 40% of her eyes which is a benchmark disability as described under the Act. It is alleged that, the petitioners herein have obtained certain documents from the Kerala Public Service Commission relating to the applications and test results of the 2nd respondent under the Right to Information Act. After receiving the same, the petitioners have submitted various complaints before the University, P.S.C, Indian Nursing Council, Higher authorities of the hospital management etc., alleging that the 2nd respondent is not competent to hold the post of Principal in a nursing college. It is contended that on account of the same, the petitioner was subjected to humiliation and the same resulted in the loss of two job opportunities to her under the Government. The complaint was submitted in such circumstances alleging that the aforesaid acts of the petitioners amount to offences punishable under Ss. 89 and 92 of the Act. This Crl.M.C. is filed praying for quashing all the further proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid crime.

(2.) Heard Sri. Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, Sri. Ranjit George, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Even though notice was served upon the 2nd respondent, there is no appearance for the 2nd respondent.

(3.) The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that none of the offences alleged against the petitioners would be attracted even if the entire averments in Annexure-A1 complaint are taken at their face value. It is pointed out that even according to the averments in the complaint, the petitioners had submitted complaints before the authorities concerned challenging the competence of the 2nd respondent herein and there are no materials produced by the 2nd respondent indicating that the petitioners filed the aforesaid complaints with an intention to humiliate the 2nd respondent with respect to her disability. Therefore it was contended that the offences are not attracted