Kerala High Court Declines To Quash Criminal Proceedings Against Man Booked For Uploading Allegedly Objectionable Video Against Nuns

The prosecution alleged that the video was published on June 01, 2020, with the intent to hurt and insult the religious feelings of nuns. It is alleged that the petitioner indecently represented nuns and intentionally insulted Christian bishops and priests.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that prime facie offences are made out and that criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be quashed.

“Going by the allegations herein, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the offences would attract on the facts of the case cannot be appreciated so as to quash the proceedings, since the offences are prima facie made out from the materials.”

A crime was registered against the petitioner for allegedly committing offences Sections 298 (uttering words etc with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the IPC, Sections 3 (prohibition of advertisements containing indecent representation of women) and 4 (prohibition of publication or sending by post of books, pamphlets, etc., containing indecent representation of women) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

The petitioner contended that an offence under Section 504 of IPC was not established, since there was no intentional insult to break public peace. Relying upon various decisions, it was argued that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence will not amount to intentional hurt under Section 504 of IPC.

It was also argued that FIR did not mention what abusive language was used by the petitioner and no prima facie offence was made out.

The petitioner further stated that there was no indecent representation of women. He further argued that no offence under Section 298 of IPC was also made out.

On analysing the provisions, the Court observed that prayer for quashing the proceedings was unsustainable. As such, the Court dismissed the petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates C.Unnikrishnan (Kollam), M.R.Sudheendran, Uthara A.S, Vijaykrishnan S. Menon, D.Jayakrishnan, Praveen P., Vivek Nair P.

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor M P Prasanth

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 5451 OF 2024

Case Title: P V Samuel v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 566