The Kerala High Court has partly quashed criminal proceedings against Prasad Mahendragiri, holding that general abuse directed at a woman, by itself, does not constitute an offence under Section 354A(1)(iv) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) without a specific allegation of sexually coloured remarks.
Justice Jobin Sebastian passed the order on September 16, 2026, in Crl.M.C. No. 1240 of 2026. While quashing the proceedings under Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC, the Court directed that proceedings under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 509 IPC would continue in accordance with law.
The case arose from Crime No. 209 of 2024 registered at Kalpetta Police Station, Wayanad. According to the prosecution, on March 9, 2024, the accused allegedly abused the de facto complainant in filthy language at the premises of Sree Maniyankottappan Mahakshethram at Maniyankode in Kalpetta, allegedly due to prior enmity.
The prosecution further alleged that when CW1 and CW3 went to question the accused about the same, he again abused them on the public road in front of his house, allegedly made sexually coloured remarks and threatened to do away with them while carrying a machete. Based on these allegations, he was charge-sheeted under Sections 354A(1)(iv), 294(b), 506(ii) and 509 of the IPC.
The High Court observed that merely using obscene or abusive words would not automatically attract Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC. A specific allegation of sexually coloured remarks is necessary.
The Court held:
“However, it cannot be ignored that the mere utterance of obscene words would not, by itself, automatically attract an offence under Section 354A(1)(iv) of the IPC. There must be a specific allegation that the accused had made sexually coloured remarks against the de facto complainant. A general abuse directed at a woman does not, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 354A(1)(iv) of the IPC. Therefore, the ingredients to attract an offence under Section 354A(1)(iv) are not made out in this case.”
The Court also found that the allegation that the accused threatened the de facto complainant and CW3 while carrying a machete prima facie disclosed the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 506 IPC. As regards Section 509 IPC, whether the words were intended to insult the complainant's modesty was held to be a matter requiring evidence at trial.
The Kerala High Court allowed the petition in part and quashed the proceedings under Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC. Proceedings under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 509 IPC were directed to continue in accordance with law.
Case Title: Prasad Mahendragiri v. State of Kerala & Another
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 1240 of 2026
Judge: Justice Jobin Sebastian
Decision Date: September 16, 2026
