DEEPU v. THE STATE OF KERALA

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Annexure-II is the final report filed against the petitioner. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Annexure-II.

"പ്രതതി രണ്ടര വർഷത ത്തോളമത്തോയതി ആവലത്തോതതികത്തോരതിയുടടെ അറതിതവത്തോ സമ്മതതമത്തോ ഇലത്തോടത ടെതിയത്തോനതിയുടടെ തഫത്തോതടത്തോ തഫസസ്ബുകതിൽ ഇടട്ട് ഇവൾ എൻടറ ഭത്തോരര്യയല എനന്നും മറന്നും പ്രചരതിപതിചട്ട് ടെതിയത്തോനതിയുടടെ സസ്വകത്തോരര്യതയട്ട് ഭന്നുംഗന്നും വരുതതിയുന്നും തഫത്തോണതിൽ വതിളതിചട്ട് നതിരന്തരന്നും അസഭര്യങ്ങൾ പറഞന്നും നതിരന്തരന്നും അശശ്ലീല ടമതസ്സേജുകൾ അയചന്നും തങ്ങൾ തമ്മതിലുള്ള പ്രശന്നും എലത്തോവടരയുന്നും അറതിയതിച ആവലത്തോതതികത്തോരതികട്ട് മത്തോനഹത്തോനതി വരുതതിയുന്നും ടെതിയത്തോനതികട്ട് ഇഷ്ടമല എന്നറതിഞടകത്തോണ്ടട്ട് നതിരന്തരന്നും ശലര്യന്നും ടചയ്യുന്നതത്തോയതി ടവളതിവത്തോകയത്തോൽ പ്രതതി തമൽ വകുപട്ട് പ്രകത്തോരന്നും കുറന്നും ടചയതിരതിക്കുന എന്നട്ട്."

5. Admittedly, the defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. The 1^stoffence alleged is under Sec.354D(i) & (ii). It will be better to extract Sec.354 D IPC.

"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,

4

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. To attract Sec.354D (i) & (ii) IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused 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 monitors the use by a woman of

5

the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication. The same amounts to stalking. As I mentioned earlier, in this case, the wife is the defacto complainant. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that it is difficult to attract Sec. 354D(i) & (ii) of the IPC in this case against the petitioner, who is admittedly the husband of the defacto complainant. There may be matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. If there is cruelty and harassment, the defacto complainant can proceed against the petitioner under Sec.498A IPC. But, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that Sec. 354 D(i) and (ii) of the IPC is not attracted in this case.

7. The other offence alleged is under Sec.119(b) of the Kerala Police Act. Sec. 119 (b) says that if an accused takes photographs or records videos or propagates them at any place in a manner affecting the reasonable privacy of women, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding

6

ten thousand rupees or with both. Except the averment to the effect that the petitioner posted a photograph of his wife in the Facebook, there is no allegation to attract Sec.119(b) of the Kerala Police Act. Except the allegation that the petitioner posted a photograph of the defacto complainant and stated in the Facebook that there is no relationship with her, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. To attract the offence under Sec. 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act, the accused had to take photographs or records videos or propagates them at any place in a manner affecting the reasonable privacy of women. There is no such allegation in the final report or in the first information statement produced along with the Crl.M.C. But, I make it clear that if the defacto complainant has got any grievance against the petitioner regarding the commission of any other offence, the defacto complainant is free to proceed, in accordance to law. But, no offence under Sec. 354D(i) & (ii) IPC and Sec.119(b) of the Kerala Police Act is attracted, based on the allegation in the final report.

7

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed.

All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.3585/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur arising from crime No. 698/2016 of Anthikad Police Station are quashed.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGE

SKS

8

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8208/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 698

OF 2016 OF THE ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION

DATED 7/4/2016

ANNEXURE II A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME

NO. 698 OF 2016 OF ANTHIKAD POLICE

STATION DATED 30/6/2016

9