Alex vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6560 Ker

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
 THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 19TH JYAISHTA,
                           1944
                CRL.MC NO. 2102 OF 2021
     Crl.A. 2/2017 OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,
                   THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
   CC 2749/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
                  COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

        ALEX,
        AGED 24 YEARS,
        S/O. SALIMKUMAR, KAVADITHALAKKAL PUTHEN
        VEEDU, NEAR VETTIKONAM SCHOOL, MUDHI
        SASTHAMCODE WARD, PEROORKADA VILLAGE,
        THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 013.

        BY ADVS.
        M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)
        SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN
        ADV.THARA JOHNSON


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

        STATE OF KERALA,
        REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
        VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION,
        THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE
        LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
        KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.



        SRI P G MANU, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS   CRIMINAL   MISC.   CASE   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 2102 OF 2022               2



                                      ORDER

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

proceedings in C.C.No.2749 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad.

2. The petitioner is the 1 st accused. The offence alleged

against him is under Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act.

Annexure-A1 is the First Information Report. It was

registered suo motu by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Vattiyoorkavu Police Station (CW7).

3. The prosecution case in short is that on 14.07.2015

at 5.20 p.m., near Nettayam Junction Bus Stop, at

Peroorkada, the petitioner along with the 2 nd accused showed

sexual gestures degrading the dignity of women and thereby

committed the offence.

4. After completion of the investigation, Final Report

was filed before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court-II, Nedumangad. It is marked as Annexure-A2. The

learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. After

hearing both sides, the court below initially framed charge

against the accused. When the charge was read over and

explained to the petitioner, he pleaded guilty. Therefore, he

was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner

filed an appeal at the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram as

Crl.Appeal No.2 of 2017. The Sessions Court,

Thiruvananthapuram, allowed the appeal and remanded the

case to the court below for fresh trial in accordance with law.

Thereafter, further investigation was conducted by the Police

under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and further report was

filed. It is marked as Annexure-A10. Even though the

petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section 239

of the Cr.P.C. before the court below, it was dismissed. It was

thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court invoking

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

5. I have heard Adv.Thara Johnson, the learned counsel

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

Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv.Thara

Johnson, vehemently argued that even if the entire allegations

in Annexure-A1 First Information Report and Annexures-A2

and A10 Final Reports are taken at this stage well, no offence

under Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act is made out. I

find force in the said argument. The prosecution allegation is

that CW7 Sub Inspector of Police received information that the

petitioner and the 2nd accused were showing sexual gestures

degrading the dignity of women in a public place. On getting

the said information, he along with two Police Constables,

CWs1 and 2, went to the site and they found that the

information was true. CWs 1 and 2 are the Occurrence

Witnesses cited. Their statements were taken twice. It forms

part of Annexures-A2 and A10. They only stated that when

they reached the scene of occurrence, they saw the petitioner

and the 2nd accused sitting on a bike showing gestures with

their hands towards the place where women were standing

and when they saw them, they ran away. This is the only

statement to connect the petitioner with the offence. The rest

of the prosecution witnesses, CWs 3 to 6, only stated that

they saw the policemen chasing the accused and catching

them.

7. In order to attract Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police

Act, the accused should perform, in public places, any sexual

gestures or acts degrading the dignity of the women. As

stated already, the witnesses only stated that they saw the

petitioner and the 2nd accused, showing gestures with their

hands aimed at the place where a few women were standing.

There is no case that those gestures were sexual gestures or

with intention to degrade the dignity of women. In the

absence of such a case, the prosecution under Section 119(a)

of the Kerala Police Act cannot be sustained. Apart from the

said statement of two police persons, there are no supporting

materials.

8. A Single Bench of this Court in Arun v. State of

Kerala [2019 (2) KLT 906] has held that the complaint or the

First Information Report, as the case may be, shall contain

recital as to the specific gesture or act performed by the

accused, which according to the prosecution, was degrading

the dignity of women. Either in the First Information

Statement or in the statement of the witnesses, there are

neither the details as to the specific gesture or act performed

by the petitioner nor are there allegation that the said act was

performed with the intention to degrade the dignity of women.

Hence, I am of the view that the ingredients of offence under

Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act are not made out.

9. In view of the above facts, I find that no useful

purpose will be served in proceeding further against the

petitioner. Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.C.No.2749

of 2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-

II, Nedumangad, hereby stand quashed.

The Crl.M.C. is allowed.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE DSV/10.06.2022

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2102/2021

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.949/2015 OF THE VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE-A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.949/2015 OF THE VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE-A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.2/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED FIRST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE-A5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 03.05.2017.

ANNEXURE-A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 111 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER TO THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 06.06.2017.

ANNEXURE-A7 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED ON 03.07.2017 IN JANMABHUMI DAILY.

ANNEXURE-A8 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.965/2016 OF VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE-A9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20.03.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE-A10 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.949/2015 OF THE VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE-A11 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.9.2020 IN C.M.P.NO.10896/2018 IN C.C. NO.2749/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD.

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL