"Whether Statement Made Amounts To "Sexually Coloured Remarks" Is A Matter Of Evidence": Kerala HC Refuses To Quash Sexual Harassment Case Against Major Ravi
The Kerala High Court refused to interfere with the order that took cognizance of the offence of Sexual harassment against filmmaker Major Ravi, who allegedly defamed and sexually harassed the Chief Co-ordinating Editor of Asianet News.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed by the Petitioner against whom the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act were alleged.
The bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed, “Simply because of a legal embargo regarding some of the offences, the order taking cognizance as far as the remaining offences need not be set aside, if there is nothing to interfere with the same.”
Advocate S. Rajeev appeared for the Appellant and Advocate V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The petitioner Major Ravi is a former army officer and a celebrity. The second respondent is the Chief Co-ordinating Editor of Asianet News. The case was registered based on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner had defamed the defacto complainant and also committed the offences alleged in the final report in a speech made by him at BTH Hotel, Ernakulam.
The Court said that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance under Sections 500 and 501 IPC based on a Police report in the light of the prohibition under Section 199 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Court set aside the cognizance taken under Sections 500 and 501 IPC.
The Court further said that if the Magistrate took cognizance of different offences in an order and if it found that taking cognizance as far as some of the offences concerned are bad, the Court need not set aside the order taking cognizance as such.
The Court also observed that whether the speech of the petitioner is about the 2nd respondent or not cannot be decided by the court while taking cognizance. “Taking cognizance is on the offence and not the offender.”, the Court added.
Accordingly, the Court was of the view that it need not interfere with the order taking cognizance by the Magistrate under Section 354A IPC and Section 120(o) of the KP Act.
Finally, the Court disposed of the Criminal Miscellaneous Case.
Cause Title: A.K.RAVEENDRAN @ MAJOR RAVI v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:61880)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. S.RAJEEV, Adv. K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN, Adv. D.FEROZE and Adv. V.VINAY
Respondent: Adv. V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR and Se. PP RENJITH.T.R