'Ex-Army Officer & Celebrity Needs To Be Careful': Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Major Ravi For Remarks Against TV Anchor

Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed:

“The petitioner was an army officer and also is a celebrity. The common people will usually watch them and their words. While making speech and statements, it is the duty of such people to be careful. Facing trial in this case is an opportunity to the petitioner to prove his innocence. If the petitioner is sure that no offence is committed by him, he should prove it before jurisdictional court instead of rushing to the High Court to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.”

The incident occurred in 2016 when Major Ravi made some statements at an event in Ernakulam allegedly directed at the complainant. The final report filed by the police alleged that Mr. Ravi with the intention of defaming and causing mental agony to the complainant made sexually coloured remarks against the complainant.

In additional to sexual harassment under Section 354 of IPC, the petitioner was also charged with defamation under Section 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code and for causing nuisance and violation of public order under Kerala Police Act.

The petitioner alleged that even if the allegations in the final report are accepted, the offences alleged are not made out. In the charges of defamation, the petitioner argued that the order of taking cognizance would not stand as the cognizance was taken based on a police charge. As per Section 199 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the cognizance for defamation can be taken only upon a complaint by the aggrieved person.

The court quashed the order taking cognizance for the offence of defamation. However, court rejected the petitioner's argument that the Magistrate has not applied his mind while taking cognizance as seen in taking cognizance for offences under Section 500 and 501 of IPC, and therefore the order of taking cognizance of the report should be set aside in its entirety.

The petitioner submitted that the name of the complainant is not mentioned in the speech. However, the complainant submitted that the statements are intended towards her and they contained sexually coloured remarks. The Court held that all these are matters of evidence and is to be decided by the trial Court.

The original case is before the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ernakulam.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates S. Rajeev, K. K. Dheerendrakrishnan, D. Feroze, V. Vinay

Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. V. V. Nandagopal Nambiar, Senior Public Prosecutor Adv. Renjith T. R.

Case No: Crl.M.C. 8647 of 2017

Case Title: A. K. Raveendran @ Major Ravi v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 534