O R D E R
Dated this the 4thday of September, 2024 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.41/2022 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, arose out of crime No.11/2022 of Kottayam Railway Police Station. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents.
3. In this case, Section 354D of IPC is the offence alleged to be committed by the accused. The specific allegation of the prosecution is that at about 18.20 hours on 24.02.2022, while the defacto complainant herein was staying at Platform No.II at Kottayam Railway Station for
3
travelling to Karunagappally, the accused followed and stalked her. Thereafter, when the defacto complainant boarded the general compartment of the Venad Express, then also, the accused herein followed and stalked her despite her resistance and deleberate attempt to keep away from him. Thereby the accused alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 354D of IPC.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire allegations are false. It is further submitted that no materials available in the prosecution records to see the commission of offence as alleged, prima facie.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner on pointing out that there are materials to attract offence under Section 354D of IPC.
6. Even though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no materials are available to
4
see commission of offence under Section 354D of IPC, going by the First Information Statement, it is stated that the defacto complainant, who was studying at CMS College, Kottayam for BSc Chemistry degree, while staying on platform No. II, at Kottayam Railway Station at 6.20 pm on 24.02.2022, as usual, awaiting her train to reach her native place in Karunagappally, the accused reached there and attempted to chat with her by putting questions. Though she replied disclosing her native place as Karunagappally, he asked more questions and the defacto complainant resisted the same by removing herself to another place. Then the train arrived and she went inside the train. Thereafter, the accused followed her inside the train compartment and attempted to foster personal interaction with her repeatedly, though the defacto complainant on every occasion tried to avoid the same.
7. In this connection, it is relevant to refer Section 354D of IPC and the same is as under:
5
"354-D. Stalking.— (1) Any man who-
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that-
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."
6
8. On perusal of the prosecution materials, the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 354 of IPC are made out, prima facie. In such a case, quashment of the proceedings cannot be considered, prohibiting trial of the matter.
In the result, this petition stands dismissed. Interim order of stay stands vacated.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court for information and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
7
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1324/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME
NO.11/2022 OF KOTTAYAM RAILWAY, POLICE STATION DATED 25/02/2022.
ANNEXURE A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
IN CRIME NO.11/2022 OF KOTTAYAM
RAILWAY, POLICE STATION DATED
22/04/2022.
ANNEXURE A3 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT
GIVEN BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT / 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24/02/2022
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL