HC quashes Manju Warrier's harassment case against filmmaker Sreekumar Menon, questions stalking claims

Kochi: The Kerala High Court dismissed the case against film and ad director Sreekumar Menon on Monday, which had been filed by actor Manju Warrier. Justice S Manu determined that the charges against Menon were not sustainable based on the allegations presented.

The FIR was registered at the Thrissur East Police Station, and the case was awaiting hearing in the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court -I. Menon faced accusations 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 the IPC, and Section 120 (o) (causing nuisance to a person) of the Kerala Police Act. He sought to have the proceedings against him quashed, as reported by Live Law.

According to the complaint, Warrier had established a charitable organization and enlisted Menon's ad agency, 'PUSH,' for its activities. She also featured in advertisements with PUSH. An agreement between her and PUSH, made in 2013, was terminated in 2017 due to differences between Warrier and Menon.

Warrier alleged that Menon held a grudge against her for ending the contract and claimed he behaved inappropriately and harassed her mentally while she was filming a movie directed by him in 2018. She contended that during the movie's release and promotion, Menon attempted to defame her. She further claimed that from April 2018, he sent messages via Facebook and phone that impacted her career and modesty.

Warrier stated that while the agreement was active, she had entrusted Menon with signed blank papers and letterheads, fearing he might misuse them. She requested action to retrieve those documents and to prevent Menon from making statements damaging to her reputation or modesty.

During questioning after the complaint was filed, Warrier said that Menon insulted her with a vulgar Malayalam term at Dubai Airport.

The High Court ruled that following a woman to verbally abuse or threaten her does not constitute stalking under Section 354D. The court referenced its prior ruling in Jayaprakash PP v Sheeba Ravi (2023), which clarified that stalking requires intent to outrage a woman's modesty or to seek personal interaction despite clear disinterest from her. It concluded that given the context of the relationship between Warrier and Menon, the alleged actions did not meet the criteria for stalking.

Regarding Section 294(b), the court noted that this charge was based on allegations that Menon insulted Warrier in Dubai Airport in front of witnesses. The court highlighted that because the incident occurred outside India, obtaining the Central Government's sanction under Section 188 of the CrPC was necessary for prosecution. It also pointed out that to qualify as an offence under Section 294(b), the conduct must have a tendency to "deprave and corrupt" those exposed to such influences.

The court acknowledged that while the alleged conduct may have been defamatory or hurtful, it did not amount to an offence under Section 294(b). The court also observed that Warrier did not mention this incident in her initial complaint and that there was a delay of over 10 months in reporting it.

Additionally, the court stated that Section 509 would only apply if the words or gestures were made with the intent to insult a woman's modesty or invade her privacy. Simply using unpleasant or abusive language without such intent does not constitute an offence under Section 509. The court ruled that Warrier's claims regarding Menon’s phone and Facebook abuse did not meet the criteria for this section.

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

Based on these findings, the court granted the petition, quashing the final report and any further proceedings in the case. The court noted that Warrier had not appeared personally or otherwise despite being notified about the case through the police.