SAKEER HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first accused in SC No.594/2014 of the Special Court for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Manjeri for offences punishable under sections 509, 34 IPC and sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act and Section 3(1) (XI) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has approached this court to quash the proceedings against him.

(2.) The defacto complainant was the collegue of the petitioner in a shop. She alleged that, in March 2009, the petitioner had taken her photograph on a mobile and with the help of a computer technician, the sexual images of other persons were morphed on a computer with the photograph of the defacto complainant, with the full knowledge that the defacto complainant belonged to a scheduled caste community. The morphed photograph and the sexual scenes were shown to the defacto complainant by the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the images were transmitted to the phone of the second accused, who spread it to several other persons through their mobiles. Alleging that the accused had committed acts which were intended to outrage her modesty and that they have committed various offences punishable under the provisions of Information Technology Act 2000, the defacto complainant filed a complaint. She alleged that, the above acts were done by the accused taking advantage of the fact that she belonged to SC community. Crime was registered and after investigation, final report was laid. Cognizance was taken and the matter is now pending before the Special Court for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Manjeri.

(3.) The premise on which the Crl.M.C.is laid is that, the prosecution allegation and the materials produced by the prosecution do not prove prima facie, the allegations raised against the petitioner. It was contended that, the petitioner has been falsely implicated and in spite of detailed investigation, the investigating agency could not bring out any incriminating circumstance establishing the allegation against the petitioner herein. It was further contended that, there is no likelihood of a conviction and hence, the prosecution of the petitioner herein will be a futile exercise.