Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Film Director Sreekumar Menon Filed By Film Actress

The FIR was filed in Thrissur East Police Station and the case was pending before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court -I, Thrissur. He was alleged of committing offences under Sections 354 D (stalking), 294(b) (obscene acts and songs), 509 (words, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of IPC and Section 120 (o) (causing nuisance to a person) of Kerala Police Act. The director approached the High Court to quash further proceedings in the case.

As per the complaint, the actress had formed a charitable organization and had engaged Mr. Menon's ad agency 'PUSH' for the activities of her foundation. The complainant also acted in some ads in association with PUSH. An agreement executed between her and PUSH in 2013 was terminated in 2017 due to some differences between the complainant and Sreekumar.

The actress alleged that the petitioner had a grudge against her for terminating the contract. Thereafter, he behaved indecently with her and mentally harassed her while she was acting in the movie directed by Menon in 2018. She alleged that during the release and promotion of the movie, Sreekumar engaged in defaming her. She further mentioned in her complaint that from April 2018, he conveyed messages through Facebook and over phone affecting her career and modesty.

She said that when the agreement between them was in force, she entrusted some signed blank papers and letter heads to the petitioner. She said that she apprehends that the petitioner may misuse them. She requested appropriate action to return those signed papers and prevent the petitioner from making comments that would affect her reputation or outrage her modesty.

During the interrogation after registration of the complaint, the actress said that Sreekumar addressed her with a filthy Malayalam word and abused her in Dubai Airport.

The High Court held that following a woman to abuse or threaten will not fall within the scope of Section 354D. The High Court relied on its earlier judgment in Jayaprakash P. P. v Sheeba Ravi (2023) which held that to attract the offence of stalking, the said act must be done with an intention to outrage the modesty of the woman or to foster personal interaction despite a clear indication of disinterest by the woman. This decision also held that a threat or abuse by a man towards a woman who is at loggerheads with him is not stalking. The High Court held that in the instant case, considering the issues between the petitioner and the complainant, the said act cannot be considered to fall within Section 354D of IPC.

The Court observed that Section 294(b) of the IPC was added based on the allegation that the petitioner called the complainant a filthy Malayalam word in Dubai Airport in the presence of many others. The Court noted that since the act is alleged to have occurred outside India, the sanction of Central Government under Section 188 of Cr.P.C is mandatory for prosecuting the petitioner. The Court further observed that the test of whether an offence under Section 294(b) occurred is whether the alleged act has a tendency to 'deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences'. The Court held that the alleged act might have been defamatory or have hurt the complainant, but it does not constitute an offence under Section 294(b). The Court also took note of the fact that the actress had not mentioned about this fact while giving the complaint and there was a delay of more than 10 months in reporting this incident.

The Court further held that Section 509 would be attracted only if the words are uttered or gestures are made with the intention of insulting the modesty of a woman or to intrude the privacy of such woman. Mere utterances of unpleasant or abusive words without an intention to insult or intrude upon the privacy of the woman would not attract the offence under Section 509 of IPC. The Court held that the allegations that Sreekumar abused the complainant over phone and Facebook in a manner causing disrepute to her and outraged her modesty does not attract the offence under Section 509 of IPC.

The Court held that the remaining Section is only Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act. Since, the offence under the Section is non-cognizable, the police cannot continue prosecution without obtaining permission.

Based on these observations. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the final report and further proceedings in the case. The Court noted that the actress did not make any appearance personally or otherwise even after the notice was served upon her and she was intimated about the case through police.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates S. Rajeev, K. K. Dheerendrakrishnan, V. Vinay, D, Feroze, Anand Kalyanakrishnan

Case No: Crl.M.C. 1562 of 2020

Case Title: Sreekumar Menon v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 694