The Kerala High Court on August 18, 2026, quashed the criminal proceedings against former Congress MLA A.T. George in connection with the 2015 Kerala Legislative Assembly ruckus case. The proceedings stemmed from a private complaint filed by former LDF MLA K.K. Lathika, who alleged that George restrained her, touched her inappropriately, attempted to push her to the floor, and struck her on the back below the neck with his elbow. It was further alleged that George, along with other accused, obstructed her free movement inside the Assembly Hall and outraged and insulted her modesty.
The offences alleged against George were punishable under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The court noted that a coordinate Bench had already quashed the proceedings against the other accused in the case, including Congress MLAs M.A. Vaheed, Dominic Presentation, and K. Sivadasan Nair, on the ground that their actions were undertaken to fulfil a constitutional duty to ensure the presentation of the budget by the then Finance Minister, late K.M. Mani, and not to commit the offences alleged.
Justice C.S. Dias, hearing the matter, observed that the allegations against George, even if accepted in their entirety, did not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 341 or 354 of the IPC. The court emphasized that the continuation of proceedings could not be sustained merely on the basis of an allegation of assault when no corresponding offence had been made out. It further noted that the learned Magistrate had deleted the offence under Section 509 IPC while framing the charge, being satisfied that the said offence was not attracted.
The court clarified that it was not quashing the proceedings on an appreciation of the truth or falsity of the allegations, but because the allegations, even if accepted as true, did not constitute the offences charged. It added that the allegations specifically and substantively attributed to the petitioner did not constitute the offences charged against him, nor was there a sufficient factual foundation in the complaint to attract Section 34 IPC.
Seeking parity with the earlier quashing of proceedings against M.A. Vaheed, George had filed the present petition, contending that the complaint was politically motivated and the allegations did not make out the offences alleged. After hearing the parties, the court found merit in the plea and allowed it, thereby quashing the complaint as well as all further proceedings in the case. The matter was disposed of under Crl.MC No. 5143 of 2025, titled A.T. George v. State of Kerala and Anr.