Kerala High Court
Dhandapani.M vs State Of Kerala Rep By Sub Inspector Of ... on 11 September, 2025
CRL.MC NO. 7682 OF 2022 1
2025:KER:67760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 7682 OF 2022
CRIME NO.303/2021 OF Malampuzha Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.977 OF 2021 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
DHANDAPANI.M
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O LATE.R.MUTHU, 9/362 RAJESWARI NILAYAM THOTTAPURA,
MALAMPUZHA P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678651
BY ADVS.
SRI.AJIT JOY
SHRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.BABU
SHRI.SHAJI P.K.
CRL.MC NO. 7682 OF 2022 2
2025:KER:67760
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K,PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 7682 OF 2022 3
2025:KER:67760
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.977/2021
on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III,
Palakkad, which arose out of Crime No.303/2021 of
Malampuzha Police Station, Palakkad. The offences
alleged against him are under Sections 294(b) and 354 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The prosecution case is that, on
24.06.2021 at about 12.15pm, the petitioner pushed
aside the defacto complainant by pressing upon her left
breast and also pulled her by the nightie worn by her, and
subjected the defacto complainant and her husband to
verbal abuse. According to the prosecution, the incident
occurred when the defacto complainant and her husband
were cleaning a water channel near their residential
house. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed
the aforesaid offences.
3. The case has been registered by the
Malampuzha Police on 03.07.2021, on the basis of the
2025:KER:67760
First Information Statement given by the defacto
complainant. After completion of the investigation, the
Sub Inspector of Police, Malampuzha, laid the final report
against the petitioner.
4. In the present petition, the petitioner
would contend that he is totally innocent, and that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. It is further
contended that none of the offences alleged by the
prosecution are attracted in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing
the State of Kerala.
6. As regards the offence under Section
294(b) of IPC, it is pertinent to note that neither the First
Information Statement given by the defacto complainant
nor the statements of other witnesses relied on by the
prosecution could disclose the precise obscene words
alleged to have been uttered by the petitioner. It is well
2025:KER:67760
settled that the mere utterance of abusive words cannot
by itself constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of
IPC. For classifying a word as obscene, it has to be shown
that those words were lascivious or intended to appeal to
the prurient interests of the person hearing it. As far as
the present case is concerned, the prosecution records do
not disclose the utterance of any such words by the
petitioner. Thus, the offence under Section 294(b) of the
IPC is prima facie not bought out from the prosecution
records.
7. As regards the offence under Section 354
of IPC, the prime requirement to be fulfilled to bring home
the aforesaid offence is that the offender should have the
intention to outrage the modesty of the victim, or the
offender should have the knowledge that doing the
aforesaid acts is likely to outrage the modesty of the lady
concerned. In the case on hand, the allegation against
the petitioner is that he pushed aside the defacto
complainant while she, along with her husband, was
2025:KER:67760
cleaning a water channel near to their residence. There
is also the allegation that the petitioner had pulled the
defacto complainant by her nightie. However, it is not
possible to discern from the First Information Statement
or the statements of the other witnesses, that the
aforesaid acts were committed with the intention to
outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant. On the
other hand, it appears that the objective behind doing the
aforesaid act was to prevent the petitioner and her
husband from proceeding with the work which they were
doing in the water channel. That being so, it is not
possible to say that the offence under Section 354 of IPC
is brought out in the case on hand. In the above
circumstances, the continuance of the criminal
prosecution against the petitioner in connection with the
aforesaid crime, would amount to abuse of process of
law. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the
proceedings against him in the said case, is fully
justifiable.
2025:KER:67760
In the result, the petition stands allowed. The
proceedings against the petitioner (accused) in C.C.
No.977/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad, which arose out of Crime
No.303/2021 of Malampuzha Police Station, Palakkad, are
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
G.GIRISH
JUDGE
AJ
2025:KER:67760
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.8.2020
BEFORE THE SECRETARY, MALAMPUZHA GRAMA
PANCHAYATH
Annexure A-4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.8.2020 NO.A2
Annexure A-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2021 IN
CRLMC NO. 1704/2021 OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS
COURT, PALAKKAD
