Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Madala Venkata Kishore vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 2022
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4469 of 2021
ORDER:-
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash C.C.No.370/2020 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District against the petitioners/A1 and A2.
2. The petitioners/A1 & A2 filed the present petition questioning C.C.No.370/2020 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, wherein the respondent-police have investigated and filed charge sheet under section 509 r/w 34 IPC.
3. Initially, basing on the complaint of the 2nd respondent herein dated 12.4.2018, the Duvvada police, Visakhapatnam District have registered a case in Cr.No.117/2018 under section 509 r/w 34 IPC. The contents of the complaint dated 12.4.2018 read as follows:
...Namaste. My name is Lavanya. My husband works in steel plant. I am working as Yoga Teacher. About 2 years ago, i.e. during January 2015, both my friend Mani and her husband Kishore came to our house. They asked me to do some help financially as they sustained loss in business. I gave Rs.one lakh which is with me to them. They gave two cheques. When they got bounced, I told that I would proceed legally, but they told not to go and confidently told that they would return back the money. By believing in them, I did not go legally. Since then, they were telling confidently that they would give. Now, they have changed phone nos. When we go to their house and asked, they scolded me indecently. About 10 days ago, when I went to their house and asked, they scolded me in filthy language. I felt very sad. I have crumbled like anything mentally for their words. It is becoming very sad. I have helped them and got blamed by them. Please take action."2
4. Even according to the charge sheet, basing on LW1's statement that LW1 gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and at that point of time, the petitioners have given two empty blank cheques to her. Later those cheques were bounced. After bouncing of cheques, LW1 informed to the petitioners that she will proceed as per due process in the Court. Then they told her that they will return the amount within a short period. Believing their words she could not proceed further. But they did not return her amount. After that they changed their mobile numbers.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the contents of the complaint would not attract the ingredients of section 509 IPC or section 354 IPC. He has also placed reliance on the statements made by LW1 to LW6. All the witnesses are hear say witnesses and they are not direct witnesses and also the ingredients in the complaint or statements of LWs would not attract the ingredients of section 509 IPC. To support his contention he relied on two judgments of this Court reported in between Ayinapurapu Venkata Lakshman Kumar vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh1 wherein this Court has observed that the intention to outrage the modesty of a woman or knowledge that any such act that would be committed by him against a woman would outrage the modesty of a woman and thereby using criminal force or assault against the woman, are the predominant requirements and essential ingredients that are required to be established to constitute an offence punishable under section 354 IPC.
1
2020(2) ALT (Crl.) 30 3
6. In another judgment of this Court reported in between K.S.Vinay Kumar vs. State and another2 wherein it is held that:
The concept of modesty concerns with feminity including sex. Wherever there is an assault or insult to this feminity or the like qualities accompanying it, the offence under section 509 of the penal code will be made out. Modesty of a women is altogether different concept which has very little to do with the physique of the woman. Bashfulness is another characteristic of this feminity. Any attempt of assault on this aspect may amount to insulting the modesty.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent has submitted that there is no necessity to use physical force against the woman for attracting the ingredients either under section 354 IPC or 509 IPC. As per the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl.MC.No.5130 of 2019 (A) in Abhijeet J.K.vs State of Kerala and two others observed that as per section 354 IPC prescribes the punishment for outraging the modesty of a woman by an act of assault or use of criminal force. In spite of the existence of the aforesaid provision in the Indian Penal Code, the legislature has incorporated section 509 in it, making punishable even a verbal attack of insulting the modesty of a woman. In view of the legislature incorporated under section 509 IPC, no necessity of physical force or assault even making verbal words against a woman would come under the purview of section 509 IPC.
8. Though in the present case, the matter is pertaining to commercial transaction and there are no direct witnesses that the petitioners have scolded the 2nd respondent/complainant and no doubt there is no assault made against the petitioners to attract section 354 IPC.
2 2013(2) ALD (crl.) 381 4
9. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and also on perusal of the complaint as well as the statements made by the witnesses and on perusal of the observations of this Court in the above mentioned judgments, no case is made out against the petitioners punishable under section 509 IPC.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.370/2020 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District against the petitioners/A1 and A2 is hereby quashed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date:22.3.2022 RD 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION No.4469 of 2021 Dated 22.3.2022 RD