Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Ayinapurapu Venkata Lakshman Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 March, 2020

Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

                                1
                                                                 CMR, J.
                                                   Crl. P.No.5413 of 2019




THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

               Criminal Petition No.5413 of 2019

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner seeking quash of the charge-sheet in C.C. No.378 of 2018 on the file of the VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam City.

The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.378 of 2018. The de facto complainant lodged a report with the Police against the petitioner and two others, against whom the charge-sheet is not filed, stating that on 15.06.2018 the de facto complainant went to the house of the petitioner and questioned the petitioner for not attending the repairs of the house and at that time, the petitioner abused her in filthy language and stated that he is not going to attend the repairs of the house till the disposal of the case which is filed by the de facto complainant in the civil Court and at that time, the petitioner kicked the de facto complainant on her stomach and also threatened her with dire-consequences.

Police registered the said report as a case in Crime No.111 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323 and 509 of IPC and investigated the same.

After completion of the investigation, Police filed charge- sheet against the petitioner alone for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323 and 509 of IPC.

CMR, J.

The petitioner now seeks quash of the proceedings in C.C.No.378 of 2018 on the ground that when the civil suit is pending, it is highly improbable to believe that when the de facto complainant went to the house of the petitioner and questioned him for not attending the repairs of the house, that the petitioner beat her. So, he submits that it is evident that a false case is foisted against the petitioner. Therefore, he contends that the very launching of criminal prosecution against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences is an abuse of process of law and thereby sought quash of the said proceedings.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor of the 1st respondent and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant.

Perused the record.

The grounds on which the petitioner sought quash of the proceedings in C.C.No.378 of 2018 are not tenable and valid grounds for the purpose of quashing the entire proceedings in this case. This Court cannot consider the probabilities and improbabilities of the case as pointed out by the petitioner in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. while exercising its inherent power for the purpose of quashing the proceedings on the said grounds. It is the task of the trial Court to consider the said probabilities and improbabilities of the case along with the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case and appreciate the same in the final adjudication of the case 3 CMR, J.

and decide the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. Certainly, the said ground is not a valid ground for the purpose of quashing the entire proceedings.

However, upon perusing the contents of the F.I.R. and also the contents of the statements of the witnesses including the victim in this case recorded by the Police during the course of investigation, this Court found that the facts of the case do not constitute any offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC regarding outraging the modesty of the de facto complainant by the petitioner. All that she stated in the F.I.R. and in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is that the petitioner abused her in filthy language and thereafter, kicked her on her stomach.

Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State would contend that kicking the de facto complainant on her stomach with a leg by the petitioner amounts to using criminal force against her or assault against her and it is sufficient to hold that her modesty is outraged. This Court finds difficulty to countenance the said contention. Using of criminal force or assault with an intention to outrage the modesty of a woman is essential to constitute an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC as per the language employed in Section 354 of IPC. In a dispute arose at the spur of the moment if a person kicks even a woman on her stomach without there being any circumstances to show that he has 4 CMR, J.

used the said criminal force with an intention to outrage her modesty, it cannot be held that he has committed any such offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. 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 of IPC. Such essential requirements are conspicuously absent in this case as can be seen from the facts stated in the F.I.R. and also in the statement of the victim in this case. Similarly, the facts of the case do not make out any offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC also. It is a simple case where the petitioner at the spur of the moment kicked her on the stomach which clearly constitutes an offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC only. As the facts of the case, prima facie, disclose commission of an offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, the entire proceedings of the case in C.C.No.378 of 2018 cannot be quashed. As no offences under Sections 354 and 509 of IPC are made out from the facts of the case, only the proceedings in the said C.C.No.378 of 2018 relating to the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 509 of IPC are hereby quashed.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.378 5 CMR, J.

of 2018 on the file of the VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam City, relating to the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 509 of IPC only. As regards the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, the proceedings shall be allowed to go on and it is for the trial Court to try the accused for the said offences and decide the truth or otherwise of the said allegations in the final adjudication of the case.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:03.03.2020.

cs