Kerala High Court refuses to quash sexual harassment case against actor Unni Mukundan

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday refused to quash the criminal proceedings against Malayalam cine actor Unni Mukundan in a case of outraging the modesty of a woman [Unni Mukundan v State of Kerala & Anr.]..Single-judge Justice K Babu said that the trial court should proceed with the trial against Mukundan and dispose of the same within a period of three months."I have carefully gone through the materials placed before the Court. The petitioner failed to show that there was any patent miscarriage of justice in the proceedings in the court below. This Court is not inclined to terminate the proceedings at this stage. The criminal MC lacks merits, and it stands dismissed. The trial court shall proceed with the trial of the case and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from this day," the Court said.It, however, added that the trial court shall consider any applications moved by Mukundan to dispense with his personal appearance before it during the course of the trial."In the event the petitioner makes an application under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Court below shall consider the same in accordance with law." .Mukundan is a well-known cine actor in Malayalam, Tamil, and Kannada film industries. He is currently facing prosecution for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 354 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) before a Judicial First Class Magistrate Court.The complaint against Mukundan is that he forcefully tried to kiss and rape the complainant, an Austrian woman of Indian Origin.She had gone to meet him to brief him about a story for a prospective movie.The trial court while dealing with the matter had held that the material made available disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offences.Therefore, it had dismissed Mukundan's application seeking discharge, and had decided to frame charges. Thereafter, Mukundan approached the Session Court with a revision petition challenging the decision of the trial court. The Sessions Court dismissed the petition and confirmed the findings of the trial court..When Mukundan moved the High Court, it had initially granted the stay on the trial, upon being informed about the settlement through an affidavit.The affidavit that was supposedly signed by the woman was submitted by Mukundan, through advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, who is himself embroiled in a bribery scam.However, on February 9, the High Court lifted the stay, taking note of the woman's submission that Mukundan has been attempting to compel her to withdraw the case using delaying tactics.The final judgment of the High Court passed on Tuesday did not reflect this sequence of events but focused on the merits of Mukundan's petition. In the said judgment, the Court said that at the stage of framing charge, the trial court is not required to deeply analyse the material on record or consider circumstances such as any delay in filing the complaint. "A test of prima facie case has to be applied before framing of charge. At the stage of framing charge, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone in; the material brought on the record by the prosecution is accepted as true at that stage. The Court need not look into the delay in preferring the complaint at this stage," the Court said.Accordingly, the plea was dismissed with a direction to the trial court to complete the trial within three months. .Mukundan was represented by advocates Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Benny Antony Parel, S Sibha and Parvathy Vijayan. Public Prosecutor Sangeetha Raj represented the State.The complainant was represented by advocates V John Sebastian Ralph, CN Sreekumar, Sabu P Joseph, Manju Paul, and Anil Prasad..[Read Judgment]