Quashed

Mobin T Joy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jun 2019Crl.MC/1757/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging a chargesheet under Section 509 IPC arising from a workplace dispute regarding dance participation allegations, the court quashed the proceedings following an amicable settlement after the employees left the company and no cognizable offence was made out on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned chargesheet and all further proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner stand quashed.

Mobin T Joy Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1757 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 53/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO. 2188/2018 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

MOBIN T. JOY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. JOY, MUNDACKAL THAYIL HOUSE, KARIKKATTOOR CENTRE P.O, MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686544.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.L.SHYAM SRI.K.K.VINOD

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶13

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶14

3 MRS. SHAMIYA, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O. NIBIN SAM BABUJI, PULIKKATHARA HOUSE, KAIPPATTOOR, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689648.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.VINODKUMAR FOR R3

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 1757 of 2019

¶20

..2..

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 1757 of 2019 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2019

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner was working as Human Resources Manager of a company, namely M/s Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd., and the third respondent (the lady defacto complainant) is a Senior Human Resources Executive of the same company. The third respondent/ lady defacto complainant has lodged a complaint before the second respondent stating that the above company used to insist that all the employees including men and women should participate in a theme dance every morning and on the day in question, as the lady defacto complainant was having her periods, she has found it difficult to participate in the dance and therefore, she had informed the petitioner in advance that she is not in a position to participate in the theme dance and that in the presence of other persons in the office, he had told her that those who do not participate in the dance should not work in that company and they would be treated as absentees and that the only exemption is in the case of those having pregnancy. On the basis of the said complaint, the second respondent SHO has registered Annexure A7 FIR in Crime No.2188 of 2018 of Central

¶24

..3..

¶25

Crl.MC.No. 1757 of 2019

¶26

Police Station, Ernakulam, for the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation, the police has filed Annexure A8 charge sheet, in which Crime No.2188 of 2018 is registered, which has now led to CC No. 53 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam. In the course of the investigation, the second respondent has given an additional statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., making some extra allegations that can be seen in the internal page No.7 of Annexure A8 final report (Page No.32 of Crl.M.C.).

¶27

Heard Sri.Shyam K.L., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel for the third respondent/lady defacto complainant and Sri.Amjad Ali, the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 & 2.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that going by the admitted allegation raised in Annexure A7 FIS, given in internal page Nos. 6 & 7 of Annexure A7 (Page Nos.24 & 25 of Crl.M.C.), it can be seen that the only allegation that the petitioner told the third respondent that the employees, those who do not participate in the theme dance in the company, will be treated as absentees and that the only exemption that can be given is to the pregnant ladies, will not constitute the offence under Section 509 IPC. It is further pointed out

¶29

..4..

¶30

Crl.MC.No. 1757 of 2019

¶31

that later, the third respondent has made some additional allegations as against the petitioner as can be seen from her statement recorded by the police given in internal page No.7 of Annexure A8 (Page No.32 of Crl.M.C.). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said allegations subsequently made by the third respondent are only to add strength to the case as the allegations in the FIS would not constitute any offence.

¶32

After hearing both sides, this Court suggested to both sides that going by the nature of the allegations in this case, it is better that the parties seek some amicable settlement of the disputes between them. Accordingly, the advocates appearing for the petitioner/accused and the third respondent/lady defacto complainant had instructed the respective parties to be personally present before this Court and this Court had interacted with both the parties. They have now informed that both of them left the employment of the company. The third respondent is a married lady and she has appraised this Court that in view of the aforesaid aspects, she is prepared for an amincable settlement. The petitioner/accused also has taken a reasonable approach. Both parties and the respective counsel were asked to have a joint interaction. Now, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respective parties concerned that the petitioner/accused has

¶33

..5..

¶34

Crl.MC.No. 1757 of 2019

¶35

expressed his sincere apologies to the third respondent for the incident in question and the third respondent has appraised this Court that in view of the apology expressed by the petitioner/accused, she is not proceeding the prosecution in this case and that her complaint in this regard is withdrawn.

¶36

Even apart from the aspect of the admitted settlement, this Court is of the view that on the merits of the matter, no offence under Section 509 IPC is made out going by the initial allegations disclosed in Annexure A7 FIS. However, in view of the above said aspects, this Court is of the considered view that a quietus is to be given to the above dispute and accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure A8 final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No. 2188 of 2018 of Ernakulam Central Police Station against the petitioner/accused, which has led to CC No. 53 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam against the petitioner/accused and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the petitioner/accused will stand quashed.

¶37

The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before investigating officer concerned and the competent court below

¶38

concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned for necessary

¶39

Crl.MC.No. 1757 of 2019

¶40

..6..

¶41

information.

¶42

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

¶43

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶44

bka/

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 25.05.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶48

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 19.09.2018.

¶49

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 19.09.2018.

¶50

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 20.09.2018.

¶51

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER VIDE MAIL DATED 20.09.2018 FOR ANNEXURE A4.

¶52

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 10.10.2018.

¶53

Crl.MC.No. 1757 of 2019

¶54

..7..

¶55

ANNEXURE A7 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.2188/2018 DATED 12.10.2018 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERANKULAM.

¶56

ANNEXURE A8 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.2051/2018 DATED 12.11.2018 IN CRIME NO.2188/2018.

Mobin T Joy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mobin T Joy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.S.Raju, Vs Balamani

Pranav Vs State of Kerala

Ajil I.a., Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Asif Vs State of Kerala

Ismail M. Vs State of Kerala

Zayana Nazim Vs State of Kerala