Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Bhavanam Lalitha Reddy vs Perumalla Purnachandra Rao And Other on 8 March, 2013
Author: R.Kantha Rao
Bench: R.Kantha Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P. No.1851 OF 2013 DATED:08-03-2013 BHAVANAM LALITHA REDDY..PETITIONER PERUMALLA PURNACHANDRA RAO AND OTHER ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner:Sri Raja Reddy Koneti Counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 : ---- Counsel for the respondent No. 3: Public Prosecutor. <Gist: >Head Note: ?CITATIONS: AIR 1996 S.C., 309ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the V- Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, to frame a charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents No.1 and 2 in C.C.No.125 of 2012 and to proceed with trial of the case in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner is the de facto complainant in the above case. She lodged a report with the Station House Officer, Arundalpet P.S., against respondents No.1 and 2 (A.1 and A.2), who are father and son, alleging as under:- The petitioner has been running a Boys Hostel in the name and style of 'Sri Laxmi Boys Hostel' in Naidupet, Guntur, in a terraced house belonging to A.1 on a monthly rent of Rs.22,000/-. A.1 developed sore eye against the petitioner and therefore enhanced the rent to Rs.44,000/- from August 2011 onwards and the petitioner has been paying the same. However, the Accused again started harassing her to increase the said rent. On 18.12.2011 at about 11.30 hours the accused came to her and demanded for increasing the rent again, otherwise to vacate the premises. Thus demanding, the respondents/accused uttered filthy language and the 2nd respondent caught hold of her turf, threw her on the ground, kicked her and beat her. Thereafter, the petitioner has been receiving threatening calls from different numbers and hence, the petitioner sought for action against the accused. 3. Basing on the said report, the police registered a case in Crime No.441 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 509 and 506 of I.P.C., and filed charge-sheet against respondents No.1 and 2 accordingly. The trial Court also framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 509 and 506 of I.P.C., and proceeded with the trial. The petitioner was also examined as PW-1. Later, she represented to the Magistrate that she was advised by her Counsel that the offences alleged, in fact, attract the penal provisions under Section 354 of I.P.C., and, therefore, she orally insisted upon the Magistrate to frame a charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C., and thereafter to proceed with the trial, as she is a victim in terms of Section 2 (wa) of the Amended Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected her request on the ground that there is no written application by the Public Prosecutor and held that the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C., is not made out from the case record. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner came up with the present criminal petition. 4. Now the point for determination in the Criminal Petition is whether the learned Magistrate is right in declining to frame a charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C.? 5. Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: "354. Assault or criminal force 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." 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner - de facto complainant relied on a decision of the Supreme Court report in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S.Gill1 in support of his contention and argued that in the circumstances of the present case the learned Magistrate ought to have framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C., also against the accused. In the said case, the alleged act of a top most official of State Police in slapping senior lady IAS officer on her posterior in the presence of gathering of elite of Society was questioned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C., and the relevant portion of the said decision reads as under: "In State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 S.C., 63, a question arose whether a female child of seven and a half months could be said to be possessed of "modesty" which could be outraged. In answering the above question, Mudholkar J., who along with Bachawat J., spoke for the majority, held that when any act done to or in the presence of woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 354, I.P.C. Needless to say, the 'common notions of mankind' referred to by the learned Judge have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. The other learned Judge (Batchawat J.) observed that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the attribute of her sex. From the above dictionary meaning of 'modesty' and the interpretation given to that words by this Court in Major Singh's case (AIR 1967 SC 63) (supra) it appears to us that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is, is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. When the above test is applied in the present case, keeping in view the total fact situation, it cannot but be held that the alleged act of Mr.Gill in slapping Mrs.Bajaj on her posterior amounted to 'outraging of her modesty' for it was not only an affront to the normal sense of feminine decency but also an affront to the dignity of the lady - "sexual overtones" or not, notwithstanding." 7. What amounts to outraging modesty of a woman is nowhere defined in the Penal Code. According to the Supreme Court, 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 can not 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. However, the facts of the above case relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner are different from the facts of the present case. In the instant case, there was a quarrel between the complainant and A.1 and A.2 about the enhancement and/or payment of the rent and vacating the house belonging to them. In the course of the said quarrel, A.2 allegedly came upon the petitioner, abused her in filthy language, demanded her to pay the rent at higher rate or to vacate the premises, caught hold of her tuft and kicked her by pulling her down. The aforesaid alleged criminal act does not attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C., since it was not done with an intention to outrage the modesty of the petitioner or with the knowledge that her modesty will be outraged. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Magistrate has rightly framed the charges under Sections 323, 506 and 509 of I.P.C., and rejected the claim of the petitioner for framing of another charge for the offence punishable under Sec.354 IPC. Therefore, there are no grounds to insist upon the learned Magistrate to frame a charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C. 9. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ R.Kantha Rao, J
8th March, 2013