New Delhi (Agency): The petitioner, Mr. Jayaprakash P.P., aged 53, sought to quash the Final Report and all further proceedings against him. He faced charges under Sections 354-D and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution’s case, the petitioner worked as the Assistant Zilla Zainik Welfare Officer, and the complainant was the Zilla Zainik Welfare Officer at the District Office in Kottayam. The allegations made by the complainant stated that on a particular day when the petitioner was on leave, he made repeated phone calls to her, spoke rudely, and threatened her. She disconnected the call as she could not clearly hear him, but he called back, causing mental distress and disrupting her peace. The petitioner also threatened another officer for not allowing the complainant to take the phone call.
In her statement filed under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the complainant added that the petitioner threatened to complain to the Vigilance department and even mentioned setting fire to the exchange. Additionally, she received disturbing WhatsApp messages from him.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations did not meet the requirements for the offense of “stalking” as defined in Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code. They contended that the intent to outrage the modesty of a woman was a crucial element, and the petitioner’s actions did not fulfill this criterion.
In response, respondent No.1’s counsel asserted that repeated attempts to contact a woman, regardless of the mode of communication, could still constitute stalking under Section 354-D. The learned Public Prosecutor supported this argument.
The court carefully examined Section 354-D, which defines stalking, and considered the legislative intent behind its enactment. The court observed that the intention to foster personal interaction, despite a clear indication of disinterest by the woman, is a key element of the offense. Based on this interpretation, the court concluded that the allegations against the petitioner did not meet the requirements of Section 354-D.
Regarding the charges under Section 509 of the IPC, which deals with insulting the modesty of a woman, the court found them unsubstantiated.
In its judgment, the Kerala High Court invoked its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The court categorized the case as falling under categories 1 and 3 of the Bhajan Lal judgment, wherein the allegations, even when taken at face value, did not constitute an offense or establish a case against the accused.
This ruling by the Kerala High Court sets a precedent for cases involving stalking and insulting the modesty of women, emphasizing the importance of proving intent and meeting the legal requirements. It also highlights the need for a balanced interpretation of the law to protect individuals from potential misuse of penal provisions.
Stalking is a serious offense that can cause significant distress and harm to the victim. Therefore, it is crucial for courts to carefully consider the specific elements of the offense and ensure that the allegations meet the legal requirements before proceeding with criminal charges.
This judgment by the Kerala High Court provides clarity on the interpretation of stalking laws and reaffirms the necessity to establish intent and personal interaction to constitute the offense. It underscores the importance of protecting the accused from false or baseless allegations while ensuring the rights and safety of potential victims.
