Allowed

Suresh Babu M.A. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2022Crl.MC/316/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Case seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for alleged offences under IPC Sections 294 and 506. The Court held that the college lab was not a public place negating offense under Section 294, and investigation without permission violated Section 155 Cr.P.C. for Section 506. Further proceedings were stopped.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C.No.477/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur were quashed.

Suresh Babu M.A. Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 316 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.1696/2014 OF Viyyur Police Station, Thrissur CC 477/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

¶7

-I,THRISSUR

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

SURESH BABU M.A., AGED 57 YEARS S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, MANAMKANNEZHATHUHOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD P.O., EDAVANAKKAD DESAM, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 502.

¶10

BY ADVS.P.G.SURESH ASWATHY KRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

2 ANAND LALY NEERS, AGED 48 YEARS W/O.NANADAKUMAR, NANDANAM HOUSE, ACHUTHAPURAM DESAM, POTTOOR VILLAGE, P.O.THIRUR, VIYYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 581.

¶14

SRI. P.G. MANU, SR. PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.316/2022

-:2:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2022

¶20

This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.477/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur.

¶21

The petitioner is the accused. The 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC.

¶22

I am of the view that even though the petitioner has impleaded the defacto complainant as the 2^nd respondent, notice need not be issued to her.

¶23

I have heard Smt. Aswathy Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations in the FIS together with the materials collected during investigation are taken together, no

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.316/2022

¶26

-:3:-

¶27

offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. The learned counsel further submitted that since the offence punishable under Section 506(i) of IPC is a non cognizable offence, investigation of the said offence without the permission of the Magistrate is hit by Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in James Jose v. State of Kerala (2019 (3) KHC 531) in support of her said submission.

¶28

The petitioner was working as a Demonstrator in Civil Environmental Lab and 2^nd respondent was working as an Assistant Professor in Government Engineering College, Thrissur. The prosecution case is that on 21.10.2014, the petitioner in front of the students, intimidated the defacto complainant and also hurled abusive words against her.

¶29

Even though the incident was on 21.10.2014, the FIR was lodged after a period of two weeks. In order to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, the following two ingredients have to be satisfied:(i) The offender has sung, recited or uttered any obscene song or word in or near any public

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.316/2022

¶31

-:4:-

¶32

place, (ii) has so caused annoyance to others. If the act is not

¶33

obscene, or is not done in any public place, or the song recited or uttered is not in or near any public place or that it caused no annoyance to others, no offence is committed.

¶34

I went through the FIS as well as the additional statement given by the defacto complainant. I went through the statement of the remaining witnesses and also perused the scene of occurrence. The scene of occurrence is a lab in Trissur Government Engineering College. Only some students and teachers of the college were there at the time of the alleged incident. The lab in an engineering college can never be termed as a public place. Nor can it be termed as a place near to any public place. Admittedly, no public has access to the college or lab in a college as a matter of right. That apart, the specific words allegedly uttered by the petitioner has not been stated by the defacto complainant in her FIS or further statement. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the basic ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 294(b) is not attracted.

¶35

What remains is the offence punishable under Section

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.316/2022

¶37

-:5:-

¶38

506(i) of IPC. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the offence punishable under Section 506(i) of IPC is a non cognizable offence, investigation of the said offence without the permission of the Magistrate is hit by Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. This Court in James Jose (supra) has held that the investigation of offence punishable under Section 506(i) of IPC, without permission of the Magistrate is hit by Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C and hence the proceedings cannot be sustained.

¶39

In view of the facts stated above, no purpose will be served in proceeding further against the petitioner. Hence, all further proceeding in C.C.No.477/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur hereby stands quashed. The Crl.M.C stands allowed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

Crl.M.C.No.316/2022

-:6:-

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 316/2022

¶47

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶48

Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED IN THE VIYYUR POLICE STATION AS THE CRIME NO.1696/2014 FOR THE OFFENCES COMMITTED UNDER SECTION 294 (B) AND 506(1) DATED 22/12/2014. Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR IN THE CRIME NO.1696/2014 DATED 21/04/2015.

Suresh Babu M.A. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Babu M.A. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar S.Nair Vs State of Kerala

Niyas Vs Abeena

State of Kerala Represented by Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala Vs Arun Kodungallur

Dr.Riju Vs State of Kerala

Binu Pulickakandam Vs State of Kerala

Maheem Vs State of Kerala