Bombay High Court
Prakash S/O Shyamrao Layale vs Police Station Officer, P.S. Pathrot on 28 October, 2020
Author: Amit B. Borkar
Bench: Z. A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 crapl-693-13j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 693 OF 2013
Prakash S/o. Shyamrao Layale,
Age 55 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Tawlar, Tah. Achalpur,
Dist. Amravati . . . APPLICANT
...V E R S U S..
1. Police Station Officer,
Police Station Pathrot,
Tah. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.
2. Pinky W/o. Shankar Raut,
Aged about 27 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Tawlar, Tah. Achalpur,
Dist. Amravati. . . . NON-APPLICANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. B. Dhore, Advocate for applicant.
Shri S. J. Kadu, A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
Shri M. P. Kariya, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 28.10.2020
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-
1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1983 (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 121/2013 registered against the applicant at Police Station Pathrot, Tah. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Section 3(i)
(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989"). ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 02:05:25 :::
2 crapl-693-13j.odt
2. The applicant had challenged the registration of the FIR mainly on the ground that the registration of the FIR is abuse of process of law, inasmuch as the same has been filed to abuse process of law by the non-applicant no.2, as the applicant had filed the complaint against the husband of non-applicant no.2. It is also stated that from the averments made in the FIR, it is clear that incident occurred when no person was seen on the street and therefore, the place where the incident occurred cannot be said to the scene of public place as per Section 3 of the Act of 1989. It is stated that taking overall view of the matter, the filing of the FIR amounts to abuse of process of law.
3. The application has been opposed by the non-applicant no.1 by fling reply. The non-applicant no.1, by way of reply has opposed the application on the ground that the applicant hurled abuses towards non- applicant no.2 and touched her 'Sari'. It is alleged that the applicant called upon non-applicant no.2 to satisfy the desire and touched her 'Sari' and said that 'Sari' is beautiful. It is submitted that the contents of the FIR clearly discloses offence alleged against the applicant.
4. We have heard Shri R. B. Dhore, learned Advocate for applicant, Shri S. J. Kadu, learned A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State and Shri M. P. Kariya, learned Advocate for non-applicant no.2. Shri R. B. Dhore, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that from the ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 02:05:25 ::: 3 crapl-693-13j.odt averments made in the FIR and complaints, which were filed by the applicant against the husband of the victim, the filing of the FIR is abuse of process of law. It is submitted that the alleged offence, as per the averments made in the FIR, it cannot be said that the offence has occurred within the public view as contemplated by Section 3 of the Act of 1989. Therefore, the filing of the FIR amounts to abuse of process of law.
5. Shri S. J. Kadu, learned A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State and Shri M. P. Kariya, learned Advocate for non-applicant no.2 have invited our attention to the contents of the FIR and submitted that incident occurred on 15.10.2013 and the averments made in the FIR clearly discloses the constitution of offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC as also under the provisions of the Act of 1989 and therefore, submitted that trial is necessary in the facts of the present case. They submitted that taking into consideration the averments made in the FIR, it discloses offence against the applicant and therefore, application deserves to be rejected.
6. We have scrutinized the averments made in the FIR and reply filed by the non-applicants. For consideration of issue involved, it is necessary to consider Section 354 of the IPC, which read as under:- ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 02:05:25 :::
4 crapl-693-13j.odt "354. Assault or criminal fine to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
7. What amounts to outraging modesty of a woman is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal code. It is laid down by the Supreme Court that the essence of woman's modesty is her sex. Modesty of a woman can be said to be outraged if the action of the offender could be perceived as offending the decency of a woman. Every physical assault on a woman cannot be said to be the act of outraging her modesty. The essence of the offence is that the assault or use of criminal force must be with the intention of outraging the modesty of the woman or with the knowledge that the woman's modesty will be outraged.
8. Having considered the averments made in the FIR, role attributed to the applicant does not show intention of outraging the modesty of the non applicant no.2 or with the knowledge that the non- applicant's modesty will be outraged. If the allegations made against the applicant are considered in the context of the complaints, which were made by the applicant against the husband of non-applicant no.2 and also the fact stated in the FIR that there was election dispute between the applicant and non-applicant no.2, it appears that the FIR has been ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 02:05:25 ::: 5 crapl-693-13j.odt filed to abuse process of law against the applicant. The averments made in the context of filing of complaint against the husband of the victim and also in the light of the election dispute between the applicant and the victim, Clause 7 of para 102 of the judgment in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and others [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] is made out. Therefore, we are satisfied that the FIR registered against the applicant deserves to be quashed and set aside. We therefore, pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) Criminal Application No. 693/2013 is allowed.
(ii) The FIR dated 15.10.2013 in Crime No. 121/2013 registered against the applicant in Police Station Pathrot, Tah. Achalpur, Dist.
Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 3(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Actrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Criminal Application is allowed in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 02:05:25 :::