Kerala High Court
Subhash Augustine Thomas @ Subhash ... vs The State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2024
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2024:KER:79431
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 7622 OF 2018
CRIME NO.259/2018 OF PALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN ST NO.778 OF 2018 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SUBHASH AUGUSTINE THOMAS @ SUBHASH ILLICKAL
AGED 51 YEARS
ILLICKAL HOUSE, EDAPPADY KARA, MEENACHIL TALUK,
BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA.
BY ADVS.
C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
SRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN
SRI.PAUL C THOMAS
SRI.A.TJOSE
KUM.NEETHU SOMAN
SRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 018.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER/INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PALAI POLICE STATION, PALA, KOTTAYAM- 686575.
3 SAJI GEORGE,
KUNNELPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARACKAPALAM BHAGOM,
2024:KER:79431
CRL.MC NO.7622 OF 2018
2
KEZHUVAMKULAM KARA, KOZHUVANAL, PALA, KOTTAYAM
PIN - 686 573.
BY ADV
SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:79431
CRL.MC NO.7622 OF 2018
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.7622 of 2018
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2024
ORDER
This Crl.M.C is filed to quash the
proceedings in S.T No.778/2018 on the files of
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala, arising
from Crime No.259/2018 of Pala Police Station. The
above case is charge sheeted against the petitioner
alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b)
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the
petitioner, even if the entire allegations are
accepted, no offence is made out against the
petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The allegation in Annexure-A2 final
report against the petitioner is extracted
2024:KER:79431
CRL.MC NO.7622 OF 2018
hereunder:
" പ്രതിക്ക്, ഒന്നാം സാക്ഷി പ്രതിയുടെ
വീട്ടിലെത്തി വീടുപണി സംബന്ധമായ പണം
സംബന്ധിച്ച കാര്യങ്ങൾ ചോദിച്ചതിൽ
ഉണ്ടായ വിരോധം നിമിത്തം ടിയാള ചീത്ത
വിളിച്ച് മനോവിഷമപ്പെടുത്തുന്നുവെന്നു
ഭീഷണിപ്പെടുത്തി ദയവൂളവാകണമെന്നുള്ള
ഉദ്ദേശ്യത്തോടും കരുതലോടും കൂടി
20.01.2018 തീയതി പകൽ 1:30
മണിയോടെ ളാലം വില്ലജ് പാലാ കരയിൽ
സ്റ്റേഡിയം ഭാഗത്തു തെക്കു വടക്കായി
പോകുന്ന റിവർവ്യൂ റോഡിൻറെ കിഴക്കുവശം
ടൈൽ പാകിയ ഫുട്പാത്തിൽ നിൽക്കുന്ന
നമ്പരില്ലാത്ത ഇരുമ്പ് ഇലക്ട്രിക്ക് പോസ്റ്റിന്റെ
ചുവടിൽ നിന്നും 6.50 മീറ്റർ തെക്കു പടിഞ്ഞാറ്
മാറിയും ടി ഭാഗത്തു് സ്റ്റേഡിയം വക
പടിഞ്ഞാറ് വശം ചുറ്റുമതിലിൽ നിന്നും നേരെ
2 മീറ്റർ പടിഞ്ഞാറ് മാറിയും കാണുന്ന ടാർ
റോഡ് ഭാഗത്തു വച്ച് ഒരു കാറിലെത്തിയ
പ്രതി ഒന്നാം സാക്ഷിയെ ചീത്ത വിളിച്ചു
മനോവിഷമപ്പെടുത്തിയും വണ്ടിയിടുപ്പിച്ച്
കൊല്ലുമെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞു ഭീഷണിപ്പെടുത്തി
മരണഭയം ഉളവാക്കിയും പ്രതി
2024:KER:79431
CRL.MC NO.7622 OF 2018
മേൽവകുപ്പുകൾ പ്രകാരമുള്ള കുറ്റ കൃത്യം
ചെയ്തിട്ടുള്ളതാണ് ".
4. The alleged abusive words used by the
accused is not mentioned in the police charge but,
it is there in the statement given by the witnesses.
The words used by the accused is extracted
hereunder:
" നീ എന്തിനാടീ പൂറി മോളേ എന്റെ വീട്ടിൽ കയറി വന്നത് എന്നു
പറയുകയും മര്യാദയ്ക്ക് നടന്നിലെങ്കിൽ വണ്ടിയിടിച്ച് എന്നെ
കൊന്നുകളയുമെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ് ഭീഷണിപ്പെടുത്തി ".
5. Whether the same amounts to offence
under Sections 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code is the question to be decided. To attract the
offence under Section 294(b) IPC, certain
ingredients are necessary.
6. This Court in Latheef v. State of
Kerala [2014 (2) KHC 604] considered the ingredients
of Sec.294(b) IPC. It will be better to extract the
2024:KER:79431
CRL.MC NO.7622 OF 2018
relevant portion of the above judgment.
"5. Abusive words or humiliating
words or defamatory words will not
as such amount to obscenity as
defined under the law. Of course
there is no doubt that the words
alleged to have been used by the
revision petitioner are in fact
abusive and humiliating. But to
make it obscene, punishable under
S.294(b) IPC it must satisfy the
definition of obscenity. S.294 IPC
does not define obscenity. Being a
continuation of the subject dealt
with under S.292 IPC the definition
of obscenity under 292(1) IPC can
be applied in a prosecution under
S.294 IPC also. To make punishable,
the alleged words must be in a
sense lascivious, or it must appeal
to the prurient interest, or will
deprave and corrupt persons. In P.
T. Chacko v. Nainan Chacko reported
in 1967 KHC 231 : 1967 KLT 799 this
Court held that, "the test of
obscenity is whether the tendency
of the matter charged as obscenity
is to deprave and corrupt those
whose minds are open to such
immoral influences." In Sangeetha
Lakshmana v. State of Kerala
reported in 2008 (1) KHC 812 : 2008
(2) KLT 745 : 2008 (1) KLD 339 this
Court held thus, "in order to
2024:KER:79431
CRL.MC NO.7622 OF 2018
satisfy the test of obscenity, the
words alleged to have been uttered
must be capable of arousing
sexually impure thoughts in the
minds of its hearers." Thus it is
quite clear that, to make obscene
the alleged words must involve some
lascivious elements arousing sexual
thoughts or feelings or the words
must have the effect of depraving
persons, and defiling morals by sex
appeal or lustful desires. I find
that the words alleged to have been
used by the revision petitioner in
this case are really abusive and
humiliating, but those words cannot
be said to be obscene. As already
stated, every abusive word or every
humiliating word cannot, by itself,
be said to be obscene as defined
under the Indian Penal Code. I find
that the conviction against the
revision petitioner under S.294(b)
IPC in this case, on the basis of
the above words alleged to have
been used by him, is liable to be
set aside, and the revision
petitioner is entitled to be
acquitted. In the result, this
revision petition is allowed. The
conviction and sentence against the
revision petitioner under S.294(b)
IPC in ST No. 3810/1998 of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Chittoor are set aside, on
2024:KER:79431
CRL.MC NO.7622 OF 2018
the finding in revision that the
revision petitioner is not guilty
of the offence punishable under
S.294(b) IPC. The revision
petitioner will stand released from
prosecution on acquittal, and the
bail bond executed by him will
stand discharged."
7. As far as Section 506 IPC is
concerned, the Apex Court considered the ingredients
of the same in detail in Manik Taneja and anr. v.
State of Karnataka and anr. [2015 KHC 4046]. The
relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted
hereunder:
"13. S.506 IPC prescribes
punishment for the offence of
criminal intimidation. "Criminal
intimidation" as defined in S.503
IPC is as under:
"503. Criminal Intimidation.--
Whoever threatens another with any
injury to his person, reputation or
property, or to the person or
reputation of any one in whom that
person is interested, with intent
to cause alarm to that person, or
to cause that person to do any act
which he is not legally bound to
2024:KER:79431
CRL.MC NO.7622 OF 2018
do, or to omit to do any act which
that person is legally entitled to
do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits
criminal intimidation.
Explanation.-- A threat to injure
the reputation of any deceased
person in whom the person
threatened is interested, is within
this section."
14. A reading of the definition
of "Criminal intimidation" would
indicate that there must be an act
of threatening to another person,
of causing an injury to the person,
reputation, or property of the
person threatened, or to the person
in whom the threatened person is
interested and the threat must be
with the intent to cause alarm to
the person threatened or it must be
to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do or omit to do
an act which he is legally entitled
to do.
15. In the instant case, the
allegation is that the appellants
have abused the complainant and
obstructed the second respondent
from discharging his public duties
and spoiled the integrity of the
second respondent. It is the
intention of the accused that has
to be considered in deciding as to
whether what he has stated comes
2024:KER:79431
CRL.MC NO.7622 OF 2018
within the meaning of "Criminal
intimidation". The threat must be
with intention to cause alarm to
the complainant to cause that
person to do or omit to do any
work. Mere expression of any words
without any intention to cause
alarm would not be sufficient to
bring in the application of this
section. But material has to be
placed on record to show that the
intention is to cause alarm to the
complainant. From the facts and
circumstances of the case, it
appears that there was no intention
on the part of the appellants to
cause alarm in the minds of the
second respondent causing
obstruction in discharge of his
duty. As far as the comments posted
on the Facebook are concerned, it
appears that it is a public forum
meant for helping the public and
the act of appellants posting a
comment on the Facebook may not
attract ingredients of criminal
intimidation in S.503 IPC."
(underline supplied)
8. In the light of the above principle,
this Court perused the final report and the
allegations raised against the petitioner. I am of
2024:KER:79431
CRL.MC NO.7622 OF 2018
the considered opinion that even if the allegations
are accepted, the offences under Sections 294(b) and
506 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out.
9. The petitioner raised several other
contentions in the Crl.M.C. I am of the considered
opinion that those contentions need not be
considered by this Court. Suffice to say that, the
prosecution is unsustainable, in the light of the
dictum laid down by this Court and Apex Court which
is extracted above.
Therefore this Crl.M.C is allowed. All
further proceedings against the petitioner in S.T.
No.778/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Pala, arising from Crime
No.259/2018 of Pala Police Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SSG
2024:KER:79431
CRL.MC NO.7622 OF 2018
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.259/2018 REGISTERED BY THE S.I. OF
POLICE, PALA POLICE STATION, DATED
22.01.2018.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG
WITH THE STATEMENT OF WITNESSES, SCENE
MAHAZAR.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
30.10.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE C.I. OF
POLICE, PALA.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION ISSUED
BY CHERUPUSHPAM FILMS PVT. LTD TO ATTEND
THE ARBITRATION CASE NO.31/16 PENDING
BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUSTICE R.BHASKARAN
(RETD.)
ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF
ARBITRATION NO.31/16 DATED 17.01.2018.
ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF
ARBITRATION NO.31/16 DATED 19.01.2018.
ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF
ARBITRATION NO.31/16 DATED 21.01.2018.
ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE AIR TICKET OF THE
PETITIONER SHOWING THE TRAVEL FROM MUSCAT
TO KOCHI DATED 17.01.2018.
ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE AIR TICKET OF THE
PETITIONER SHOWING THE TRAVEL BACK FROM
KOCHI TO MUSCAT DATED 23.01.2018.
