UMMER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 470/2019 of Kaipamanglam Police Station for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Sections 448, 354, 354A(ii) and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.7.2019 at about 1 p.m. the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, a lady, and after abusing her in obscene language outraged her modesty by getting hold of her hand.

(2.) The petitioner states that the criminal complaint has been lodged in order to wreak vengeance against him as instigated by her husband. The background is that the petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale on 11.10.2018 with the husband of the defacto complainant, namely Ibrahim. There was an exchange of property also involved in the agreement. The petitioner had paid Rs. 8 lakhs as advance towards the total consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs to be paid by him. But, the parties fell out and ultimately the agreement was mutually canceled on 1.8.2019 wherein Ibrahim agreed to repay a sum of Rs. 7,76,000/- to the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that had the incident occurred on 30.7.2019, the possibility of a mutual understanding canceling the agreement on 1.8.2019 would not have been possible. It is also stated that there is a delay in lodging the fir, since the FI statement was given only on 3.8.2019, which according to the petitioner is an afterthought with the deliberate intention to involve the petitioner in a false case and prevent him from going abroad, where he is employed, it is stated that the petitioner had come home only for executing the agreement for sale.