ORDER
Dated this the 25thday of February, 2026 The accused in C.C.No.695/2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur arising out of Crime No.883/2023 of the Ulikkal Police Station, Kannur filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying for quashing all further proceedings against her. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (KP Act).
2. The prosecution case is that on 25.07.2023 and 26.07.2023, the accused sent WhatsApp messages to the husband of 3rdrespondent against his wife/de facto complainant insulting her modesty and also sent such messages through WhatsApp, Facebook, messenger etc. to the de facto complainant and her husband.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire allegations raised against the petitioner are believed as such, the same will not amount to the offences punishable under Sections 509 of the IPC and Section 120(o) of the KP Act.
4
Therefore, she prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.
4. Petitioner's request was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Though notice was served on the 3rdrespondent/de facto complainant, she did not turn up.
6. On a perusal of the FI Statement it can be seen that the de facto complainant went to the residence of the petitioner for taking a car as instructed by her husband. At that time, there was some altercation between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. It is alleged that thereafter on 25.07.2023 and 26.07.2023, the petitioner sent WhatsApp messages to the husband of the de facto complainant. The words allegedly used in the said message are "നന നണമളന
ന റയന ശവ, കഴ
ൽ നന
എഴനനറ വന ആ നത ന ലന ". In the additional statement given by the de facto complainant the word "കഴനവറ!ന" ന# ന$ " is also seen used.
7. Relying upon the definition of Sections 509 IPC as well as the decision of this Court in Abhijeet J.K. vs. State of Kerala and Ors. [2020 (2) KHC 55] the learned counsel for the petitioner
5
would argue that the words allegedly used by the petitioner do not make out an offence punishable under Section 509 of the IPC.
8. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, insult to the modesty of a woman is an essential ingredient of an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC. The crux of the offence is the intention to insult the modesty of a woman. The modesty of a woman is related to her sex. Only if the word used is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman, the same will amount to the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC. In other words, an act merely insulting a woman is not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 509 IPC. The words allegedly used by the petitioner when evaluated in the above context, makes it clear that though those words are insulting to the de facto complainant, it cannot be stated that they are insulting the modesty of the de facto complainant.
9. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not make out the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC.
10. Section 120(o) of the KP Act states that if any person causing, through any means of communication, a nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous
6
call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a messenger, shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.
11. From the allegations raised against the petitioner it is revealed that the petitioner has sent insulting messages to the de facto complainant and her husband on several days namely, on 14.06.2023, 15.06.2023, 25.07.2023 and 26.07.2023 through WhatsApp and Facebook messenger and as such, the above allegations prima facie makes out an offence punishable under Section 120(o) of the KP Act. Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed in part as follows:
12. The proceedings against the petitioner under Section
509 IPC is quashed. However, the prayer for quashing the proceedings under Section 120(o) of the KP Act is rejected. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed in part. Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR
JUDGE
MJL
7
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 11623 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.883/2023 OF ULIKKAL POLICE STATION
DATED 31.03.2024
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 883/2023 OF ULIKKAL POLICE STATION DATED
08.12.2023
Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF FIR IN CRIME NO.104/2021 OF KARIKOTTAKARI POLICE
STATION
Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.620/2023 OF KARIKOTTAKARI POLICE STATION DATED 22/09/2023
Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.669/2023 OF KARIKOTTAKARI POLICE STATION DATED 12/10/2023
Annexure VI TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2024 IN O.P. NO.1044/2023 ON THE
FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
Annexure VII TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2024 IN O.P. NO. 1044/2023 ON THE
FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
Annexure VIII TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C NO.8473/2024 DATED 04.11.2024
Annexure IX TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 126/2023 DATED 7/11/2025 BEFORE THE GRAM
NYAYALAYA, IRITTY, PAYAM
Annexure X TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 128/2023 BEFORE THE GRAM NYAYALAYA, IRITTY, PAYAM DATED 7/11/2025
Annexure XI TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER DATED
28.08.2025
Annexure XII TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
26.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL
PASSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE