The Kerala High Court ruled that calling a woman a “prostitute” in her absence and in front of third parties does not constitute an offense under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized that the essential element of the offense is the woman’s presence, as the section is meant to protect a woman’s modesty from being insulted directly.
The Kerala High Court ruled that calling a woman a ‘prostitute’ in her absence, in front of third parties, does not amount to an offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court dismissed criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who accused by the complainant of making defamatory remarks to insult her modesty in and around the flat building where both parties resided. Allegedly, the petitioners had called the complainant a prostitute.
Read Also: Bombay High Court’s Interpretation on ‘Outraging Modesty’ Under Scrutiny
Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the Single Bench, observed,
“Although the statement made by the accused was directed at third parties and not intended to be heard or seen by the complainant, it may constitute some other offence, but it does not prima facie fall under the second part of Section 509 of IPC. Moreover, this case stems from a disagreement within a residential association where both the complainant and the accused are members.”
Advocate John Sebastian Ralph V represented the petitioners, while Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George appeared for the respondents in a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The petitioners argued that even if the alleged defamatory remarks were made, they did not constitute an offence under Section 509 of the IPC.
The Kerala High Court had to determine whether referring to the complainant as a prostitute in front of flat residents and nearby shop owners intruded on her privacy. The Court clarified that for an offence under Section 509 of the IPC or Section 79 of the BNS, the remarks must have been intended for the woman to hear.
The Court observed,
“The second part of Section 509 deals with acts done with the intention of intruding upon the privacy of a woman. In this case, the first part of the offence is not applicable, as the complainant did not allege that the accused directly made the derogatory remarks to her, but rather to others in her absence,”
The Court referenced its decision in xxxx v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC Online 584), emphasizing that the mere use of unpleasant or abusive words, without intent to insult a woman’s modesty or intrude on her privacy, does not constitute an offence under Section 509.
Read Also: Delhi HC Quashes Outrage of Modesty Case of 61 year Old Man, Orders Man to Plant 30 Trees
As a result, the Court concluded,
“In view of the matter, the prayer for quashing the proceedings is liable to succeed. Therefore, I am inclined to allow this petition.”
The High Court subsequently allowed the petition.
The petitioners represented by Advocates John Sebastian Ralph V, Vishnu Chandran, Ralph Reti John, Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Appu Babu, Vishnumaya M.B., Geethu T.A., and Apoorva Ramkumar, while the respondents represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George, along with Advocates P.V. Saritha Venugopal and Basil Mathew.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
