Abusive Words Allegedly Uttered Inside Office Cabin Where Only Accused & Defacto Complainant Were Present: Kerala HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings U/s 294(b) IPC
The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 294 (b) of the IPC against an employer while observing that the abusive words allegedly uttered was inside an office cabin where only the accused and the defacto complainant were present.
The Court quashed criminal proceedings against the employer (petitioner) accused of allegedly abusing the defacto complainant out of animosity because she joined the labour union and persuaded other staff to join the trade union.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, "Having noticed the facts of the case, it is discernible that the prosecution was launched by the defacto complainant, who has been facing disciplinary proceedings much earlier before the occurrence and the entire case rests on calling of abusive words against the defacto complainant. In such view of the matter, the prosecution case is found to be a retaliatory measure at the instance of the defacto complainant to avoid disciplinary action against her initiated during 2021."
Advocate Thomas J.Anakkallunkal appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Anoop V. Nair represented the respondents.
The petitioner was accused under Section 294(b) of the IPC on the allegations that he had allegedly abused his employee, the defacto complainant, within an office cabin. The prosecution's case rested on the claim that the language used by the petitioner was obscene and caused annoyance, thereby falling under the purview of Section 294(b) of the IPC.
The petitioner argued that mere abusive language, without a clear element of obscenity, does not attract Section 294(b) of the IPC. The was further argued that the incident occurred in a private office cabin, which could not be classified as a public place, nor was there evidence that the language used had the potential to cause public annoyance.
The Bench explained that the term public place used in Section 294(a) of the IPC encompassed even those areas which were in the vicinity of public places, meaning thereby that if the obscene words uttered in a `public place’ were heard by someone who was in the vicinity of the public place, to 'cause annoyance' to them. "In such cases, an offence under Section 294(b) of the IIPC would attract,” the Court remarked.
However, the High Court noted that before the alleged occurrence and registration of the crime, the defacto complainant was already facing disciplinary proceedings for which an enquiry officer was appointed.
The Court remarked, “Therefore, the legal position is clear that quashment of criminal proceedings can be resorted to when the prosecution materials do not constitute materials to attract the offence alleged to be committed. Similarly, the Court owes a duty to look into the other attending circumstances, over and above the averments to see whether there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding instituted maliciously with ulterior motives.”
Consequently, the High Court held, “It is discernible that the prosecution was launched by the defacto complainant, who has been facing disciplinary proceedings much earlier before the occurrence and the entire case rests on calling of abusive words against the defacto complainant. In such view of the matter, the prosecution case is found to be a retaliatory measure at the instance of the defacto complainant to avoid disciplinary action against her.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: K.P. Aliyar v. State Of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:61273)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Thomas J.Anakkallunkal and Maria Paul
Respondents: Advocates Anoop.V. Nair and Devi P.; PP M P Prasanth
