Allowed

Binu Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Oct 2022Crl.MC/3033/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner accused sought quashing of criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 294(b), 354D(i), and 506(i). Court found no evidence of stalking or obscene acts. Held proceedings were abuse of law since remaining charge was non-cognizable without other sections, quashing further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of all further proceedings in C.C.No.277/2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur.

Binu Krishnan Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 3033 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 25TH ASWINA, 1944

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 3033 OF 2022

¶8

C.C.NO.277/2022 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
PAYYANNUR

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶10

BINU KRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS
SON OF KRISHNAN,
PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMPARAMBU,
PAYAM AMSOM, IRITTY P.O, PIN - 670703
BY ADVS.
I.V.PRAMOD
SAIRA SOURAJ P.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶12

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2SUNITHA K.K, AGED 45 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF A.V. GOPALAN,
K.K. HOUSE, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM,
MANDOOR P.O, PILATHARA, KANNUR, PIN – 670501

¶13

BY ADVS.
R1 BY SMT.T.V.NEEMA -SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
M.ANUROOP
LIRA A.B.(K/001251/2021)
MILAN RACHEL MATHEW(K/001735/2020)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.MC NO. 3033 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in

¶19

C.C.No.277/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

¶20

Court, Payyannur (for short ‘the court below’).

¶21

The petitioner is the accused. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 354D(i), 294(b) and 506(i) r/w 34 of IPC.

¶22

The prosecution case in short is that during the period from 4.3.2021 to 9.3.2021, the petitioner followed the 2^nd respondent to foster her personal interaction repeatedly and further abused and

¶23

criminally intimidated her and thereby committed the offence.

¶24

The petitioner is a police officer. The 2^nd respondent is

¶25

working as BLO.

¶26

I have heard Sri.I.V.Pramod, the learned counsel for the

¶27

petitioner, Sri.M.Anuroop, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent

¶28

and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶29

CRL.MC NO. 3033 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

A reading of FIS as well as the statement of the 2^nd

¶32

respondent recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C would show that two years prior to the FIS, the 2^nd respondent went to SP Office, Kannur to file a petition in connection with a pathway dispute. At that time, she met the petitioner and gave her phone number. Thereafter, they started to talk each other over phone and they became closer. The statement would further show that they even went together to Wayanad and resided in a flat for two days.

¶33

I went through the FIS (Annexure 1), the statement of the 2^nd respondent recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (Annexure 5) and her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. (Annexure

¶34

9). A perusal of those statements would show that there are absolutely no ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 294(b) and 354D (i) of IPC. In order to attract Section 294(b) of IPC, the accused should do any obscene act in public place or sings, recites or utters any obscene song or words in or near any public place. There is absolutely no such case for the 2^nd respondent against the

¶35

CRL.MC NO. 3033 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

petitioner. In order to attract Section 354D(i) of IPC, a man should follow a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman. There is no such allegation as well. On the other hand, the allegations as a whole if taken together would show that the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent became friends over phone, after they met at SP Office and thereafter they travelled together and even resided together for two days in a flat. It appears that thereafter there were some difference of opinion between them which led to filing complaint against the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent. Even though there are some vague allegations in the FIS, 161 statement as well as in the 164 statement that the petitioner followed the 2^nd respondent and threatened her, there are absolutely no allegation that the petitioner followed or attempted to contact the 2^nd respondent in order to foster personal interaction that too repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by her. In the absence of such an averment, Section 354D(i) of IPC also will not be

¶38

CRL.MC NO. 3033 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

attracted. What remains is Section 506(1) of IPC. In the FIS as well as in the 161 statement, there are allegations that the petitioner threatened the 2^nd respondent on different occasions directly as well as over phone. But that statement also are not specific, but too vague. That apart, in the absence of the remaining two sections, Section 506 of IPC would not stand inasmuch as it is a non cognizable offence. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.C.No.277/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur is hereby quashed.

¶41

Crl.M.C. is allowed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

¶46

CRL.MC NO. 3033 OF 2022

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3033/2022

¶49

`PETITIONER ANNEX`	`URES`
`Annexure1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL` `PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE` `SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KANNUR`
`Annexure2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.` `146/2021 DATED 6/5/2021 OF PRIYARAM` `MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KANNUR`
`Annexure3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME` `NO. 146/2021 OF PRIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE` `POLICE STATION DATED 9/12/2021, KANNUR` `DISTRICT`
`Annexure4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN` `CRIME NO. 146/2021 OF PRIYARAM MEDICAL` `COLLEGE POLICE STATION DATED 31/11/2021`
`Annexure5`	`A TRUE COPIES OF STATEMENTS OF 1 TO 3`
`Annexure6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHASAR DATED` `27/11/2021`
`Annexure7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED` `30/11/2021`
`ANNEXURE 8`	`COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON` `27.8.2021`
`Annexure A9`	`COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY CW3`
`RESPONDENTS` `ANNEXURES:`	`NIL`

Binu Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binu Krishnan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Afeefa V.K Vs the Station House Officer

Vipinsad Vs the State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Mini Haris Vs Hanna Haris

Aakash Simon Mohan, Vs State of Kerala

Jahangeer P.T Vs State of Kerala

Usama Vs State of Kerala