Kerala High Court
Felix Johnny Kuruvilla vs State Of Kerala on 20 June, 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 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 994 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1481/2017 OF Cheranelloor Police Station, Ernakulam
CC NO.504 OF 2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IX,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED :
FELIX JOHNNY KURUVILLA
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. JOHNY KURUVILLA,
PADICKAMYALIL HOUSE, MARIDOM,
KADAPLAMATTOM P.O., PULIYANNOOR (PART),
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686571
BY ADVS.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
AKASH S.
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
LIMA.J
RESPONDENT/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI,
PIN - 682031
2 UNNIKRISHNAN MUKUNDAN @ UNNI MUKUNDAN
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. MUKUNDAN,
"VRINDAVAN", NEAR KENDRIYAVIDHYALAYA,
SRK NAGAR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKAD,
PIN - 679 103
BY SMT.SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 994 OF 2024
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Crl.M.C.No.994 of 2024
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.504 of 2018 on the files of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IX, Ernakulam. He is being
prosecuted for the offence under Section 506(i) r/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from Section 120(O) of the Kerala Police
Act, 2011.
2. The prosecution alleged that on 23.08.2017, the first accused
had approached the defacto complainant for narrating a script for a movie
and on realising that there was no immediately available script, the
defacto complainant refused to hear the narration and getting infuriated
by the said act, the first accused intimidated the defacto complainant with
a false accusation of molestation and outraging her modesty and
attempted to extort money while the 2 nd accused acted in unison with the
first accused by sending WhatsApp messages threatening the defacto
complainant and the accused together committed the offences alleged.
3. I have heard Sri.Girish Kumar M.S., the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The proceedings against the first accused has been quashed on
the basis of a settlement arrived at between her and the defacto
complainant, as is evident from Annexure-IV judgment dated 07.07.2023
CRL.MC NO. 994 OF 2024
in Crl.M.C.No.4713 of 2023. However, no such settlement has been
arrived at with the petitioner in this case. The learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that on instructions received from the defacto complainant, the
Investigating Officer has informed that the defacto complainant does not
wish to pursue the matter further. However, that by itself is not a reason
to quash the proceedings.
5. Petitioner is an Advocate who was acting on behalf of the first
accused. He is alleged to have sent one message to the defacto
complainant identifying himself as an Advocate informing the defacto
complainant that he tried to contact him in relation to a molestation case,
several times, which he got (sic) from his friend, the first accused. The
aforesaid message is the basis for the alleged offence of criminal
intimidation.
6. Since the proceedings against the first accused has already been
quashed, all what remains is the message sent by the petitioner to the
defacto complainant. On a careful scrutiny of the message as extracted
in the final report, this Court could not identify any threat in those words,
much less any threat of any injury either to the person, reputation or
property of the defacto complainant. The only meaning that could be
culled out from the WhatsApp message extracted in the final report is
that the petitioner was a lawyer who tried to contact the defacto
complainant in respect of a molestation case regarding the first accused.
To treat such a vague message, that too issued by an Advocate after
CRL.MC NO. 994 OF 2024
identifying himself as an Advocate, cannot be treated as a criminal
intimidation under any circumstances whatsoever.
7. As far as Section 120(O) of the Police Act is concerned, the
allegations in the final report do not indicate that there was any nuisance
by any repeated or undesirable or anonymous calls or message through a
means of communication. Therefore, the said offence also cannot be
attracted in the instant case.
8. In view of the above circumstances, I find the proceedings
against the petitioner in C.C.No.504 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate's Court-IX, Ernakulam, arising out of Crime
No.1481 of 2017 of Cheranelloor Police Station is an abuse of the process
of the court and are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.504 of
2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IX,
Ernakulam, arising out of Crime No.1481 of 2017 of Cheranelloor Police
Station are hereby quashed.
The Crl.M.C. is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE
RKM
CRL.MC NO. 994 OF 2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS OF THE DE-FACTO
COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO. 1108/2017 DATED
04/12/2017 OF THE OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION
Annexure II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
1481/2017 DATED 10/12/2017 OF THE
CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION
Annexure III CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 1481/2017 OF THE CHERANALLOOR
POLICE STATION
Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/07/2023 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C. NO.
Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHEET
OBTAINED THROUGH THE ECOURTS PORTAL OF THE
JFMC-IX, ERNAKULAM
