IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1990 of 2007()
1. KUNJIRAMAN, S/O KUNJAMBU,
... Petitioner
2. NARAYANAN,
3. PADMANABHAN, S/O KUNJAMBU,
4. PHALGUNAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. CHEVIKKUTTY, S/O LATE KUNJAMBU,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :15/02/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.1990 OF 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated 15th February 2010
O R D E R
Petitioners are the accused in
C.C.105/2007 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Taliparamba, taken
cognizance for the offence under Section
354 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A3
final report. This petition is filed under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
to quash Annexure-A3 final report and the
cognizance taken thereon contending that
the ingredients of the offence under
Section 354 of Indian Penal Code is not
attracted and therefore, continuation of
the proceedings is only an abuse of process
of the court. Second respondent is the de
facto complainant.
Crmc 1990/07 2
2. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, second respondent and
learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. Annexure-A1 FI statement of
second respondent, was recorded by
Assistant Sub Inspector of Police based on
which crime No.781/2006 of Taliparamba
police station was registered for the
offence under Sections 447 and 354 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Subsequently after investigation Annexure-
A2 report was filed deleting the offence
under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code and
after investigation the offence alleged
against petitioners is only under Section
354 of Indian Penal Code.
4. Section 354 of Indian Penal
Code provides that whoever assaults or
uses criminal force to any woman, intending
Crmc 1990/07 3
to outrage or knowing it to be likely that
he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to two years or with fine
or with both. Therefore, in order to
attract an offence under Section 354
petitioners must use criminal force to the
second respondent “intending to outrage or
knowing it to be likely that they will
thereby outrage her modesty”. Annexure-A1
FI statement does not show that there was
an intention on the part of the petitioners
to outrage the modesty of the second
respondent or that they did act with the
knowledge that they were thereby outraging
her modesty.
5. What is alleged in the FI
statement is that there was a civil
litigation pending between the parties for
Crmc 1990/07 4
about six years and ultimately the civil
court decision was in favour of the second
respondent and consequently second
respondent started rubber tapping and at
that time all the petitioners came there
uttering that they will show the second
respondent, the law and proclaiming so,
first petitioner caught hold of the hands
of the second respondent and pulled her
and caused her to fall on the ground. When
hearing her cry, Dineshan, her son and
others ran towards her, petitioners left
the place. She was taken to the hospital.
But there is no allegation in the FI
statement that first petitioner either
caught hold of her hands or made her fall
on the ground, with an intention to
outrage her modesty or with knowledge that
he would thereby outrage her modesty.
Crmc 1990/07 5
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
statement of the witnesses recorded under
Section 161 also do not show that there was
an intention to outrage the modesty of the
second respondent. In such circumstances,
even if there was an incident whereunder
first petitioner caught the hands of the
second respondent and made her fall on the
ground, it will not attract an offence
under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code.
At best, it could be said that he has used
criminal force and made the petitioner
fall. Even if, an offence under Section 323
of Indian Penal Code is thus attracted,
learned Magistrate could not have taken
cognizance of the said offence on the final
report filed under Section 173(2) of Code
of Criminal Procedure as cognizance could
be taken on such an offence only on a
Crmc 1990/07 6
complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of
the Code. In such circumstances,
continuation of the proceedings is only an
abuse of process of the court.
Petition is allowed. C.C.105/2007
on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Taliparamba is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.