Referring To A Woman As Prostitute In Front Of Others Not Offence Of 'Insulting Modesty' U/S 509 IPC, May Be Another Offence: Kerala HC

The petitioners who reside in the same flat building of the complainant was alleged to have told other inmates of the flat building and nearby shop owners that the complainant was a prostitute. The police filed a final report alleging that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC. The petitioner approached the Court to quash further proceedings in the case.

The petitioner submitted before the Court that the alleged words may be defamatory, but would not attract offence under Section 509 of IPC.

Justice A. Badharudeen noted that to constitute an offence of violating the modesty of a woman, first part of Section 509 requires that any words uttered with the intention of insulting the modesty of woman should be made with the intention that it is heard by such a woman. The Court said that the alleged act would not come under this definition.

“Here, the first part of the offence is not at all made out since the defacto complainant has no case that the accused persons used the derogative text directly to the defacto complainant either to be heard or to be seen by her and the allegation is that the accused stated so to the inmates of the flat and nearby shop owners and the defacto complainant has no direct knowledge regarding the same.

The second part of Section 509 says that the acts must be done with the intention to intrude upon the privacy of the woman. The Court said that intrude would mean that the person trespassed or joined without consent or invitation to the privacy of the woman. The Court held that the alleged act would not come under that also.

The Court observed that the alleged act may attract some other offence, but would not constitute an offence under Section 509 of IPC prima facie.

The Court further observed that the case arose from the difference of opinion in a residence association where accused persons and complainant are members.

With these observations, the Court allowed the petition.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates John Sebastian Ralph V., Vishnu Chandran, Ralph Reti John, Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Appu Babu, Vishnumaya M. B., Geethu T. A., Apoorva Ramkumar

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates P. V. Saritha Venugopal, Basil Mathew, Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George

Case No: Crl.M.C. 4854 of 2021

Case Title: Anson I. J. and Others v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 625