Kerala High Court
Deena Sabu vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 11285 OF 2023
CRIME NO.12/2020 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 619/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, AMBALAPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
DEENA SABU
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O SABU, OTTOKARAN HOUSE, PALAYAM PASS P.O,
PALAYAM PARAMBU, MALA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680732
BY ADVS.
NINU M.DAS
S.A.ANAND
MOHAMMED ISHAQUE.T.T
MADHUSOODHANAN V.N.
SUNIL DETH S.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. NOUSHAD K.A. (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 11285 OF 2023
..2..
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
========================
Crl.M.C. No. 11285 of 2023
========================
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to
quash all proceedings against him.
2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.619 of 2020 on the files
of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ambalapuzha arising out of
Crime No.12 of 2020 of Vanitha Police Station, Alappuzha registered for
the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 apart from Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
3. The prosecution allegation is that the accused had posted
obscene comments in the social media platform viz. Tik Tok on
02.12.2019 and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. On a perusal of Annexure-A final report it is revealed that
the accused is alleged to have abused the de facto complainant by
posting certain comments in the social media platform Tik Tok on
02.12.2019. However, the words used by the accused have not been
specified in the final report. Even in the statement of the de facto
complainant, there is no reference to the words used in the Tik Tok
post.
CRL.MC NO. 11285 OF 2023
..3..
6. This Court has consistently held that in the absence of any
reference to the words used, an offence under Section 294(b) of IPC,
the prosecution will not be attracted. Reference to the decision of the
Supreme Court in N.S. Madhanagopal and Others v. K. Lalitha
(Manu/SC/1805/2022) and Avinash v. State of Kerala (2021(6) KHC
357) are relevant in the above context.
7. The offence under Section 506(i) of IPC are also not seen
made out as there is no reference to the nature of utterance to satisfy
any of the ingredients of those provisions. Since I have already found
that the specific words of abuse allegedly used by the petitioner has
not been mentioned either in the final report or in the FI statement, the
prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court.
8. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.
No.619 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Ambalapuzha are quashed.
This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
LU
CRL.MC NO. 11285 OF 2023
..4..
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 11285/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO. 619/2020 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALAPPUZHA
// True Copy // PA To Judge
