Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has approached this court.

6. Grievance of the petitioner is that neither learned M.M. nor learned Additional Sessions Judge have understood the true import of Section 509 IPC. Petitioner submitted that the opening of windows by the respondents, at first floor level, overlooking the courtyard of house of the petitioner impinges upon the privacy and modesty of the female members of his family as those ladies cannot freely move around or talk or gossip in the courtyard because of the fear of anyone peeping through the window/ventilator opened at first floor level by the respondents No. 2 to 4. Thus, the petitioner has submitted that the refusal of respondent No. 2 to close the window and the ventilator amounts to a deliberate act of insulting the modesty of female members of the petitioner's family and it also amounts to intruding upon their privacy, which is an offence as defined under Section 509 IPC. Thus, it is contended that the Trial Court ought not have discharged respondents No. 2 to 4. In support of this contention, petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Kerala High Court in the matter of M.M.Haries Vs. State of Kerala, 2005 (4) R.Cr.R. 579. In the said case, the question before the Hon'ble Judge of Kerala High Court was whether writing an obscene and vulgar letter and addressing the same to a woman would fall within the purview of Section 509 IPC and the Hon'ble Judge, after discussing the scope of expression making gesture held that 'writing of said letter would amount to an offence under Section 509 IPC'. In the said judgment, however, not much has been said about the intention as one of the basic ingredients constituting the offence under Section 509 IPC.

34. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex".

8. On reading of the above, it is obvious that intention to outrage the modesty of a woman is an essential ingredient of offence under Section 354 IPC. Language of Section 509 IPC, which also deals with the offence of insulting the modesty of a woman is also similar to Section 354 IPC.

10. On reading of Section 509 IPC, it is apparent that in order to bring an act committed by a person within the purview of Section 509 IPC, the act must have been committed with the intention to insult the modesty of any woman or to intrude upon the privacy of such woman. Thus, intention is the basic ingredient of the offence under Section 509 IPC. Only allegation against the respondents No. 2 to 4 in the complaint as well as charge sheet is that respondents No. 2 to 4 have opened window and a ventilator, overlooking the courtyard of the house of the petitioner at the first floor of his property. There is no allegation whatsoever that the window and the ventilator were opened with the intention to insult the modesty of woman folk of the petitioner's family or to intrude upon their privacy. If a person opens a window or ventilator in his property to ensure light and ventilation, it cannot be said to be an act intending to violate the privacy of woman folk of the neighbour or to insult their modesty. There is no allegation that aforesaid window/ventilator were used by anyone for any oblique purpose. Therefore, in my considered view, the learned M.M. as well as the revisional court has rightly concluded that the essential ingredient of offence under Section 509 IPC i.e. intention to insult the modesty of woman is lacking in this case. Thus, the order of learned M.M. discharging respondents No. 2 to 4 at the stage of serving of notice under Section 251 CrPC and the dismissal of revision petition against said order vide impugned order dated 29th May, 2009 cannot be faulted.

13. From the above, it is obvious that the Supreme Court has held that once a process under Section 204 CrPC has been issued, the Trial Court cannot revert back to the stage of Section 203 CrPC and recall the issue of process against the accused as the Trial Court has no powers to review under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

14. The facts of this case are distinct from the facts of Adalat Prasad Case (supra). In Adalat Prasad case (supra), learned Metropolitan Magistrate had recalled the summoning order by allowing the application under Section 203 CrPC after the issue of process under Section 204 CrPC. However, in the instant case, respondents No. 2 to 4 have been discharged by the learned Trial Court at the stage of serving of notice under Section 251 CrPC. At this subsequent stage, learned Metropolitan Magistrate was of the view that the charge sheet/complaint did not disclose necessary ingredient of the offence under Section 509 IPC, as such, he discharged the respondents No. 2 to 4 for the commission of abetment of offence under Section 509 IPC.