Kerala High Court Suspects Police Inspector Of Lodging 'Counterblast' FIR Against 51-Yr-Old Woman, Orders Inquiry

Suspecting foul play in the FIR lodged by a Police Inspector against a 51-yr-old woman for allegedly threatening and abusing him over the phone, the Kerala High Court has ordered the State Police Chief to inquire the facts that led to the FIR.

The petitioner-accused, who had pleaded her case in person 'teary eyed' before the Court, was booked under Section 294(b) ('Obscene acts and songs'), Section 506(i) of IPC ('Criminal Intimidation'), and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. 

"In the normal course, such an incident is unbelievable in our society. Citizens always respect the police authorities. Therefore, the District Police Chief should conduct an enquiry about the registration of this case against the petitioner and if there is any default on the part of the defacto complainant, appropriate steps should be taken in accordance with law," Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed, while quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. 

The prosecution case against the petitioner was that she had called the de facto complainant in his official mobile number and after identifying him as Circle Inspector of Police, North Police Station Alappuzha, threatened him by using abusive words. It was alleged that the conduct was repeated multiple times on the same day, and the FIR was thus registered against the petitioner alleging the aforementioned offenses.

The petitioner however asserted that she had initially approached the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha with a complaint alleging that in the neighbouring property, a prayer hall of the Penta Costal Society was being conducted which was causing noise pollution in high decibel. She submitted that the Superintendent of Police had thereafter directed the de facto complainant to conduct an inspection. She added that it was to know the outcome of the complaint that she had called the de facto complainant in his official phone, and that the latter had verbally abused her by making unnecessary and unwanted remarks. 

The petitioner averred that she subsequently filed complaints before the Superintendent of Police and the Police Complaints Authority against the de facto complainant. The petitioner also expressed doubts as to the track record of the de facto complainant, and produced news reports indicating that he had been continuously involved in illegal activities.

Finding that the FIR against her had reached the jurisdictional court only a day after the petitioner's complaint against the de facto complainant reached the office of the District Police Chief, Justice Kunhikrishnan said that itself shows that the FIR was registered by the Station House Officer at the instance of the defacto complainant as a 'counterblast', to escape from the complaint against him.

Under these circumstances, the Court was of the considered opinion that the de facto complainant ought to face the consequence if the allegations against him were correct, and a departmental enquiry ought to be carried out, if he was still in service.

The Court was also of the prima facie opinion that the offences alleged against the petitioner under the provisions could not be made out in the present case. 

"Here the prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a 51-year-old citizen, used abusive language to the Station House Officer of Alappuzha North Police Station over phone. Even if the entire allegation in the final report is accepted, I am of the considered opinion that the offences under Section 294(b), Section 506(i) of IPC and Section 120(o) of the Police Act are not made out in this case," it said. 

The plea was thus allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner in the case were quashed. 

Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth appeared on behalf of the State in this Case. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 564