SATHEESHKUMAR RAJAGOPAL PAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.1058 of 2021 of Kuthiyathode Police Station, Alappuzha, now pending as C.C. No.108/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala. The offence alleged are under Ss. 294(b) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks quashment of the crime, as also, all further proceedings therefrom, on the premise that neither the allegations in the First Information Statement, nor the contents of the Final Report, would constitute the offences afore referred.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the 1st respondent State.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court to the 2nd page of the First Information Statement to point out that, no specific word is referred to therein to ascertain whether the same is an obscene word, so as to attract the offence under Sec. 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. Both with respect to the words and with respect to the gesture alleged to have been shown by the petitioner/accused, there is no specificity of allegation, so as to attract the offence under Sec. 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Except alleging that bad words were used, so as to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant, there is no version with respect to the words used or the gestures used, so as to ascertain whether the offences alleged are attracted or not. The same is the situation with respect to the Final Report, wherein also, no such words or gestures is seen specified. In such circumstances, petitioner cannot defend himself effectively, for which reason, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards the offence under Sec. 294(b), petitioner relied upon a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S. Madhanagopal and Another v. K. Lalitha [(2022) 15 S.C.R. 649]. Particular reference in this regard is made to the findings in paragraph no.8 of the judgment.