Suresh Babu M.A vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8225 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
     FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
                      CRL.MC NO. 316 OF 2022
     CRIME NO.1696/2014 OF Viyyur Police Station, Thrissur
         CC 477/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
                           -I,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

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

            BY ADVS.P.G.SURESH
            ASWATHY KRISHNAN


RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

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

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

            SRI. P.G. MANU, SR. PP


      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:-




                                 ORDER

Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022

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.

2. 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.

3. I am of the view that even though the petitioner has

impleaded the defacto complainant as the 2nd respondent, notice

need not be issued to her.

4. I have heard Smt. Aswathy Krishnan, the learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior

Public Prosecutor.

5. 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 Crl.M.C.No.316/2022

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.

6. The petitioner was working as a Demonstrator in Civil

Environmental Lab and 2nd 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.

7. 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 Crl.M.C.No.316/2022

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

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.

8. 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.

9. What remains is the offence punishable under Section Crl.M.C.No.316/2022

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.

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.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp Crl.M.C.No.316/2022

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 316/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

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.