Kerala High Court Stays Proceedings Against Actor Unni Mukundan In Sexual Harassment Case Based On Amicable Settlement Claim

The Kerala High Court on Thursday stayed the trial proceedings against Malayalam film actor Unni Mukundan in a case where he is facing prosecution for offences under Sections 354 (Assault of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and Section 354-B (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe) of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

The case relates to an ongoing trial against the actor, initiated based on a complaint filed by a woman in 2017, accusing the actor of sexual harassment. The complainant alleged that the actor forcefully kissed her and attempted to rape her when she visited him at his residence in Kochi to discuss a movie project.

A Single Bench of Justice K Babu passed the order in light of the submission that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties and it was futile to proceed with the case further.

The actor in his plea produced an affidavit dated 27.05.2023, stating that the disputes between the actor and the complainant are personal in nature and have been settled between them. The Complainant has no complaints against the actor with regard to the said case, his plea states.

“Under such circumstances, there is no chance of conviction in the above case, especially in the light of Annexure F sworn affidavit and further proceedings in the above case is nothing but a futile exercise which will take away the valuable time of the trial court” the actor’s plea states.

A separate plea has also been filed by the woman complainant, for quashing of proceedings before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in which she is facing charges under Sections 385 (Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extor­tion) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC. The plea of the woman complainant also states that the dispute between her and the actor are personal in nature and have been amicably settled. In light of the settlement, proceeding with the case is unnecessary, her plea states. 

On 23.05.2023, the High Court had refused to quash the trial proceedings against the actor in a plea previously filed by him. The Court had dismissed the application of the actor challenging the order of the Sessions Court that confirmed the order of the trial court refusing to discharge him from the case. The Court had dismissed the actor’s application holding that “the materials placed by the prosecution prima facie disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offences.”

In the previous plea filed by the actor for quashing the same trial proceedings, the Court had granted an interim stay, which it had subsequently vacated after the counsel for the complainant stated that the Court was misled into believing that the matter had been settled. The counsel for the complainant had submitted at that juncture, that the interim stay was granted by the Court acting on a false submission by the counsel for the actor that the matter had been settled between the parties.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Adv. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Benny Antony Parel, Anoop Sebastian, Pramitha Agustine, Irine Mathew, Adithya Kiran V.E, Anjali Nair, Naail Fathima Abdulla A , Swathy Sudhir, & Adrisya S

Case Title: Unni Mukundan V State of Kerala

Click here to read/download order