These Crl.M.Cs arise from Crime No.281 of 2017 of Manathavady Police Station for offences punishable under sections 506, 509, 354A91)(iv) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners are the accused in the above crime.
2. The defacto complainant alleged that, she had married another person belonging to her own community. Since it was a love marriage, it was alleged that accused Nos.1 to 6 who were members of her community had socially ostracized her and prevented her from participating in the community function. It was further stated that, in a channel discussion, they allegedly made comments which were intended to outrage her modesty. Pursuant to the complaint laid, crime was registered originally for offences punishable under sections 506, 509 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, section 354A(1)(iv) of IPC was added by report dated 24.04.2017.
3. Petitioners have approached this Court contending that none of the above offences are made out from the facts alleged. It was contended that the various ingredients to constitute offences punishable under sections 506, 509 and 354 IPC were not made out Crl.M.C.4509/17 & 3431/17 in the FI statement and it is liable to be quashed at the threshold.
4. The precise contention of the defacto complainant is that, due to her love marriage, she was threatened by the petitioners and other members of the community. She was also ostracized from the community. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that these allegations do not constitute an offence punishable under section 506IPC. Section 503 IPC requires that there should be a direct or indirect intimation. There is no such ingredient available in the FIS, it was contended. It was also pointed out that the main allegation against the accused was that, they had participated in a channel discussion, wherein, the first accused allegedly stated that the defacto complainant was pregnant even before her marriage. It was further stated that it was due to that reason that she was removed from the community. According to her, she got married in 2012 and gave birth to a girl child in 2015. The above comments was specifically intended to lower her dignity, it was alleged.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, these allegations do not constitute offence either under section 509 or under section 354(1)(iv) of the IPC. Definitely, the comment is affecting her womanhood and may indicate that she was not a Crl.M.C.4509/17 & 3431/17 women of appreciable virtues. The question whether it is suffcient to constitute ingredients under section 354A(1)(iv) IPC or under section 509 IPC are matters which are to be gathered in the course of further investigation. The fate of the criminal case may not be decided on the basis of the FIS alone, since it need only contain the essential factors to disclose registration of a crime. The investigation is still progressing. It is too early at this stage to conclude whether the materials gathered in investigation is sufficient to prosecute the petitioners herein.
6. Having considered this, I am not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C at this stage. However, the right of the petitioner herein to move at the appropriate stage is reserved. Crl.M.Cs fail and are dismissed. Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS Judge Sbna/1/2/18 True Copy / P A to Judge