No Litigant Or Lawyer Has To Argue Before Court With Folded Hands; Judges Not Gods: Kerala High Court

"Usually the court of law is known as ‘temple of justice’. But there is no god sitting in the bench. The judges are doing their constitutional duties and obligations," the Kerala High Court remarked recently, in a case involving registration of FIR on a 51-year-old woman for allegedly abusing Police Inspector, as a suspected 'couterblast' to her complaint against him. 

Taking note that the litigant had appeared before the Court with 'folded hands and tears in her eyes' to plead her case in person, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, was of the view that her tears appeared genuine.

The Court also proceeded to state that,

"...no litigant or lawyer need to argue their case with folded hands before a court of law because it is their constitutional right to argue a case before a court of law," while adding that they still ought to maintain the decorum of the court while arguing their case.

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.

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.

The Court was thus of the view 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.

Additionally, the Court also found that prima facie, the offences alleged against the petitioner under the provisions could not be made out in the present case.

It thereby quashed the proceedings against the petitioner finding that the same would not attract the offence under Section 294(b) ('Obscene acts and songs'), Section 506(i) of IPC ('Criminal Intimidation') and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. 

The plea was tus disposed. 

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 564