[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Anilkumar vs State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2026
2026:KER:7953
Crl.M.C No.5046/2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 13TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5046 OF 2020
CRIME NO.1021/2015 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
IN RE FIR NO.1021/2015 BEFORE POOVAR POLICE STATION AND
ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.555 OF 2018 BEFORE THE COURT OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:
1 ANILKUMAR,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLA, A.A HOUSE, VALIYAVILA, NEAR
KSRTC DEPOT, T.B JUNCTION, POOVAR, NEYYATTINKARA 695
525
2 SREEKUMAR,
S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLA, A.A HOUSE, VALIYAVILA, NEAR
KSRTC DEPOT, T.B JUNCTION, POOVAR, NEYYATTINKARA 695
525
3 SHIBU V,
S/O. VELAPPAN, AMMA COTTAGE, NEAR KSRTC DEPOT, T.B
JUNCTION, POOVAR, NEYYATTINKARA 695 525
BY ADVS.
SHRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
SRI.MANU SRINATH
2026:KER:7953
Crl.M.C No.5046/2020 2
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031
2 REMA DEVI, AGED 53 YEARS
D/O. SAKUNTHALA, NIRMALYAM, VALIYAVILA, NEAR KSRTC
DEPOT, T.B JUNCTION, POOVAR, NEYYATTINKARA, 695 525
BY ADV SHRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR FOR R2
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.01.2026, THE COURT ON 02.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:7953
Crl.M.C No.5046/2020 3
ORDER
Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C No.555/2018 on the files of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara have filed this petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in the
aforesaid case.
2. The learned Magistrate initiated criminal proceedings
against the petitioners for the commission of offences under Sections
354C and 120B I.P.C upon a private complaint filed by the second
respondent. The allegation against the petitioners is that they
committed the offence of voyeurism envisaged under Section 354C
I.P.C by taking the photograph of the second respondent while she,
after having bath, was laying clothes for drying in a clothes-line near a
shed in front of her house. The petitioners, along with a photographer,
are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offence at about 11:00
a.m on 09.09.2015. According to the second respondent, the aforesaid
act of the petitioners also constituted the offence under Section 66E of
the Information Technology Act.
2026:KER:7953
Crl.M.C No.5046/2020 4
3. Originally, the second respondent had filed a complaint
before the learned Magistrate contending that the first petitioner, along
with a photographer, who has been arraigned as the 4th accused, had
taken her photograph pursuant to the conspiracy hatched with the
other accused. The aforesaid complaint was forwarded by the learned
Magistrate to the S.H.O of Police, Poovar under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C
for investigation and report. The Inspector of Police, Poovar took over
the investigation in the said case since the first petitioner was said to
be working in the Police Department. After the completion of the
investigation, the Inspector of Police, Poovar filed a refer report before
the learned Magistrate stating that the complaint was found to be false.
It was further stated in the above refer report that the
complainant/second respondent nurtured enmity with the petitioners
since the construction of a lodge building by the complainant and her
husband, in violation of the Building Rules, was stayed by the local
Panchayat on the basis of a complaint preferred by the petitioners. It
was also stated in that refer report that the 4th accused, who was a
Press Photographer, had taken the photos of that building at 4:00 p.m
on 09.09.2015, and a news item was published in the Kerala Kaumudi
2026:KER:7953
Crl.M.C No.5046/2020 5
daily of 17.09.2015 about the unauthorised building construction made
by the complainant and her husband.
4. The complainant again approached the learned Magistrate
for passing orders for a direction to conduct detailed investigation
under the supervision of the court in the light of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 (1)
KLT 724]. Pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Magistrate,
the Inspector of Police conducted a detailed investigation and
submitted a report reiterating his previous finding that the complaint is
false. It is against the above report of the Inspector of Police, Poovar,
that the complainant preferred a protest complaint upon which the
learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 354C
and 120B I.P.C after the examination of the complainant and two
witnesses.
5. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that
they are totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against
them. It is further stated that none of the offences alleged against the
petitioners are brought out in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2026:KER:7953
Crl.M.C No.5046/2020 6
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the second respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor
representing the State of Kerala.
7. As already stated above, the initial version of the
complainant/second respondent while she approached the learned
Magistrate with the complaint for the first time, was that the first
petitioner and a photographer who has been arraigned as the 4th
accused, had taken her photo while she was laying clothes for drying in
a clothe-line near a shed in front of her house. The allegation against
the other accused was that they conspired with the first petitioner and
the 4th accused for the commission of the aforesaid offence. But, by
the time she filed the protest complaint, a radical change was made in
the allegations in that complaint by stating that all the accused were
present at the time when the photograph of the complainant/second
respondent was taken at about 11:00 a.m on 09.09.2015.
8. In the sworn statement which the complainant/second
respondent tendered before the learned Magistrate, she stated that the
first petitioner flashed light upon her face, and that when she looked
around, she could find the petitioners 2 and 3 and a photographer
2026:KER:7953
Crl.M.C No.5046/2020 7
there. She further stated before the learned Magistrate that she did
not enquire for what purpose the photographer came there, and nor
did she know which photo he had taken. Thus, it could be seen from
the above statement of the complainant that it does not even disclose
that any of the accused took her photograph. That apart, there is
absolutely no indication in the above statement of the
complainant/second respondent that she had been engaging in a
private act in a circumstance where she had the expectation of not
being observed by the petitioners or any other person at their behest.
It is also pertinent to note that there is nothing in the statement of the
complainant/second respondent that she was not properly dressed at
the time when she came in front of her house for laying the clothes for
drying in a clothes-line.
9. The offence under Section 354C I.P.C would be attracted if
only it is shown that the offender had watched or captured the image
of the victim engaging in a private act in circumstances where she
would usually have the expectation of not being observed by the
perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator. As
per the Explanation-I of the said Section, the term 'private act' include
2026:KER:7953
Crl.M.C No.5046/2020 8
an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances,
would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the victim's
genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear,
or the victim is using a lavatory, or the victim is doing a sexual act that
is not of a kind ordinarily done in public. As far as the present case is
concerned, the sworn statement of the complainant/second respondent
does not reveal that her photograph was taken by the accused under
any of the above circumstances which would show that she was
engaged in a private act at the relevant time. Thus, it has to be stated
that the statement given by the complainant/second respondent before
the learned Magistrate was hopelessly insufficient to show that the
petitioners committed the offence envisaged under Section 354C I.P.C.
10. For the offence under Section 66E of the I.T Act to be
attracted, it has to be shown that the offender intentionally or
knowingly captured, published or transmitted the image of a private
area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances
violating the privacy of that person. As per the Explanation to the
above Section, private area means the naked or undergarment clad
genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breasts. As far as the present
2026:KER:7953
Crl.M.C No.5046/2020 9
case is concerned, the statement given by the complainant/second
respondent to the learned Magistrate does not contain any indication
that the petitioners had taken the photograph of her private area, to
constitute the offence under Section 66E of the I.T Act.
11. It is true that one of the witnesses examined from the part
of the complainant gave a statement to the learned Magistrate to the
effect that he had seen one person, found along with the petitioners
herein, taking the photo of a lady in bathing dress while she came out
of the house in bathing condition. The aforesaid statement of that
witness cannot be given any credence since even the complainant is
not having such a case. What has been stated by the other witness
before the learned Magistrate is that he found the petitioners and a
photographer flashing light in front of the gate of the house, and that
when he stopped the autorickshaw, the witness by name Ratnakaran
who went out of the autorickshaw and looked from the gate of that
house, found a lady running into her house with drenched clothes. The
above version of that witness is also totally unacceptable since the
complainant had not even given such a statement to the learned
Magistrate. Thus, it could be seen that the learned Magistrate initiated
2026:KER:7953
Crl.M.C No.5046/2020 10
proceedings against the petitioners without sufficient materials pointing
to the offences alleged against them. Since the petitioners are
compelled to face criminal prosecution in the absence of sufficient
grounds to proceed against them, the prayer of the petitioners to
terminate the prosecution proceedings against them, deserves to be
allowed.
In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings
against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C No.555/2018 on the
files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara, are
hereby quashed.
(Sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
2026:KER:7953
Crl.M.C No.5046/2020 11
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 5046 OF 2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF C.M.P NO. 6301/2015 FILED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF THE
JUDICIAL Magistrate OF FIRST CLASS-II,
NEYYATTINKARA
ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO. 1021/15 BEFORE
POOVAR POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REFER CHARGE (R.C NO.
51/16) IN FIR NO. 1021/15 BEFORE POOVAR
POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 4 A TRUE COPY OF C.M.P NO. 3346/16 BEFORE COURT
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS Magistrate-II,
NEYYATTINKARA.
ANNEXURE 5 A TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 30-09-2016
SUBMITTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE., POOVAR IN
C.M.P IN C.M.P NO. 3346/16 BEFORE THE COURT
OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS Magistrate-II,
NEYYATTINKARA.
ANNEXURE 6 A TRUE COPY OF C.M.P NO. 9980/17 BEFORE THE
COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
Magistrate-II, NEYYATTINKARA
ANNEXURE 7 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
23-12-2017 OF THE COMPLAINT UNDER Section 200
CR.PC
ANNEXURE 8 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
24-03-2018 OF RATNAKARAN UNDER Section 200
CR.PC
ANNEXURE 9 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
24-03-2018 OF EUGIN UNDER SECTION 200 CR.PC
ANNEXURE 10 A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO.
ATT/155/2020/PVR DATED 13-01-2020
