High Court dismissed a reference to Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of proceedings for offences involving videography and photography of a cesarean section. The court held prima facie evidence available.
Quashment of complaint and FIR disallowed; petition dismissed with liberty to raise contentions during trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY,THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2024/10TH SRAVANA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 4223 OF 2022
CRIME NO.1222/2014 OF Payyannur Police Station, Kannur
CC NO.250 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, PAYYANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:
1SUNIL P.P, AGED 55 YEARS
SON OF KUNJAMBU, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE,
VELLACHAL, KODAKKADU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT NOW
RESIDING AT THRICHAMBARAM, THALIPARAMBU P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670141.
2 SUBAIR.K, AGED 58 YEARS SON OF T.K. ABOOBACKER, KOLAYATHU HOUSE, NEAR GOV.HOSPITAL, KARUVALOOR P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670521.BY ADVS.
I.V.PRAMOD
K.V.SASIDHARAN
SAIRA SOURAJ P.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031.2SUNITHA P.M
AGED 28 YEARS
WIFE OF JAYESH E.K, POYINACHI MOTTAYIL HOUSE,
VISWAKARMA NIVAS, KONATHAVAYAL, EDACHAKAI,
UDDINOOR AMSOM & P.O, KASARAGOD-671349.
BY ADVS.
M.BAIJU NOEL
T.S.LIKHITHA(K/000211/2018)
SHINTO SABASTIAN(K/000736/2022)
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI M.P.PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.07.2024, THE COURT ON 01.08.2024 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.4223/2022-G 2
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.M.C.No.4223 of 2022-G
================================
Dated this the 1 st day of August, 2024
O R D E R
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash Annexure-1 complaint, Annexure-2 FIR and Annexure-3 final report in C.C.No.250/2017 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, in Crime No.1222/2014 of PYYnnue Police Station.
and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.
under challenge.
4 The prosecution allegation herein is that the
petitioners/accused committed offences punishable under Sections 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC' for short) and Sections 66(E) and 67 of the Information Technology Act (I.T
Crl.M.C.No.4223/2022-G 3
Act' for short). The specific allegation is that the defacto complainant undergone cesarean operation in between 11.13 hours and 11.16 hours on 18.07.2014 and gave birth to 3 children at Government Taluk Hospital, Payyannur.
vehemently canvassed quashment on the submission that the prosecution records in no way justify commission of the above offences by the accused and the identity of the victim could not be known from the so called materials collected from the mobile phone and the Tab.
fervently opposed quashment of the proceedings on the
Crl.M.C.No.4223/2022-G 4
submission that in this case when the defacto complainant undergone cesarean procedure, the accused had videographed and photographed the same and thereafter they had shared the videographs and photographs through WhatsApp and thereby they outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant and committed offences punishable under Section 66(E) of the IT Act. Therefore quashment sought for cannot be considered in this case, where prosecution materials are in plenty, prima facie , warranting trial of the case.
with statements of the witnesses as well as the records collected during investigation, it could be gathered, prima facie , that the 1st accused videographed the cesarean procedure in between 11.13 hours and 11.16 hourson 18.07.2014 and the 2nd accused also took 19 photographs of the cesarean procedure and sent the same to CW17 through WhatsApp. That apart, the WhatsApp videographs and photographs of the cesarean procedure sent by the accused were collected during investigation to justify the
Crl.M.C.No.4223/2022-G 5
involvement of the petitioners in this crime, prima facie . Thus the matter shall go for trial, and, therefore, the quashment sought for cannot be considered. In such a case, involving very serious offences, quashment of the proceedings could not be resorted to. Hence this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
disallowed, with liberty to the petitioners to raise their contentions before the trial court during trial.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to
the trial court, for information and further steps.
Sd/-
( A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE )
rtr/
Crl.M.C.No.4223/2022-G 6
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4223/2022
PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES
Annexure1A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
21/9/2014 PREFERRED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PAYYANNUR POLICE.
Annexure2A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
1222/2014 DATED 21/9/2014 OF PAYYANNUR
POLICE STATION, KANNUR.
Annexure3CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 1222/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE
STATIONDATED1/2/2017,KANNUR
DISTRICT.
Annexure4A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN
CRIME NO. 1222/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE
STATION DATED 1/2/2017.
Annexure5A TRUE COPIES OF STATEMENTS OF
WITNESSES 1 TO 43.
Annexure6A TRUE COPIES OF THE SEIZURE MAHASARS.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under severity offences involving taking video of a cesarean section and sharing it can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the prosecution materials prima facie warrant trial of the case against the accused petitioners.
Whether the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and complaint is maintainable in view of the prima facie evidence against petitioners.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SUNIL P.P.
SUBAIR.K
STATE OF KERALA
SUNITHA P.M
A. BADHARUDEEN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
A. BADHARUDEEN
Parties & counsel