Antony Kuryan @ Sibi Kuryan vs State Of Kerala Rep. By Sub ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11868 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

     FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                     Crl.MC.No.893 OF 2021(B)

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 102/2003 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                    OF FIRST CLASS, OTTAPPALAM

  CRIME NO.14/2003 OF SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD


PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

             ANTONY KURYAN @ SIBI KURYAN,
             AGED 45, S/O. KURYAN, MOOLEKUDIYIL VEEDU,
             CHEERAKUZHI, KOTTAPPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT 23980 NFM,
             MONTE ALTO TEXUS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 78538

             BY ADVS.
             SHRI.B.G.HARINDRANATH
             SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

      1      STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
             SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE
             PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
             KOCHI 682 031

      2      ABDUL NAJEEB,
             S/O. AHAMMED, KARAMBA VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK, ASI
             OF POLICE, SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, AMBALLUR
             VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD 679 513


             PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.N.MAYA

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.893 OF 2021(B)           2




                                       ORDER

The accused No.1 came up to quash the final

report alleging offence under Sections 143, 147,

294(b), 353 r/w Section 149 IPC. The main offences

alleged are under Sections 294(b) and 353 IPC. By

relying on the decision rendered by this Court in

P.T.Chacko v. Nainan Chacko (1967 KLT 799), it was

submitted that the words used even if it is

admitted would not constitute obscenity as

incorporated under Section 294(b) IPC. The

decision of the Apex Court in Ranjit D. Udeshi v.

The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 881) was also

relied on in support of the argument. In order to

make out a case of obscenity as incorporated under

Section 294(b) IPC, it must be have a tendency of

exciting lustful thoughts and it has to be

appreciated on the foundation of modern perception.

Section 294 IPC does not define obscenity. Hence,

the definition of obscenity under Section 292(1)

IPC can be applied. This Court in P.T.Chacko's case

(supra) considered a similar situation. As such,

the offence under Section 294(b) IPC will not stand

attracted.

2. In order to attract Section 353 IPC, nothing

was brought to the notice of this Court that they

were on official duty at the alleged time of

incident. As such, if it is proceeded further, it

will not serve any purpose. Hence, the final

report as against the petitioner/accused No.1 is

hereby quashed.

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NO. 102/03 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPALAM

ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 14/2003 OF SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION

ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW5 IN CC NO. 102 OF 2003 OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPALAM

ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW6 IN CC NO. 102 OF 2003 OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPALAM

ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2 IN CC NO. 102 OF 2003 OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPALAM

ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW4 IN CC NO. 102 OF 2003 OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPALAM

ANNEXURE 7 TRUE COPY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CC NO. 102 OF 2003 OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPALAM

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE