FR. MATHEW PULIMOOTTIL EPISCOPA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 486/2006 pending before JFCM - II, Ernakulam. Offence alleged against him is punishable under S. 509 I.P.C. The charge-sheet reads to the effect that on 14.5.2006 at about 7 a.m. the accused with the intention to insult the complainant abused her in the presence of the public. The accused is the Vicar of that Church. It is alleged that he asked "Daisy, why are you peeping Why are you standing here For peeping, nothing is being done here". This according to the prosecution would attract the offence under S. 509 I.P.C. S. 509 I.P.C. reads:-

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that the words used by the accused have to be understood in the context in which such words were used. It is alleged that the accused made that insinuation against the complainant while she entered the Chapel/Church when there were so many other persons to hear and as such those words did intrude upon the privacy of the complainant. From the words quoted in the charge-sheet I could not see any word which would intrude upon the privacy of the complainant nor can it be said that it was intended to insult the modesty of that woman. Simply because the complainant thinks that the words uttered by the accused carried some other meaning it cannot be said that the accused can be put to trial. Where the allegations made in the first information statement/charge-sheet even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, it would be well within the jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings, for otherwise the accused may have to face an unnecessary trial. Similarly, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge then also this Court would be justified in invoking S. 482 Cr.P.C. It is true that the power under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceedings can be exercised only sparingly and only when such an exercise is justified by the fact situation of the case. It has to be exercised with greater pragmatism.

(3.) In Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2010 AIR(SCW) 2494it was held by the Apex Court that while exercising inherent jurisdiction it should not interfere with a genuine complaint but it should certainly not hesitate to intervene in appropriate cases. It was held that one of the paramount duties of the superior courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to prosecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint.