Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

AIR 2010 SC 3196)."
(Emphasis supplied)

28. Quite evidently, for a prosecution under Section 509 IPC to sustain, it is imperative that there are definite allegations of insult to the modesty of woman or intrusion into her privacy and that merely insulting a woman is different from insulting the modesty of woman. Clearly, in the former case, the allegations would fall short to even make a prima facie case for the offence under Section 509 IPC. Reference, in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Basheer v. State of Kerala, Crl. MC No. 837 of 2010, dated 24.03.2016 , wherein the Hon'ble Court, while quashing a proceeding under Section 509 IPC, remarked as under;

"3. The learned Magistrate, and also the learned Sessions Judge erred in law to find that this prosecution can proceed under Section 509 IPC. Mere insult will not attract Section 509 IPC. For a prosecution under Section 509 IPC there must be a definite allegation of insult to the modesty of woman or intrusion into the privacy of woman. Thus the allegation must involve modesty of woman or privacy of woman. Mere insult or false allegation will not attract a prosecution under Section 509 IPC. In Annexure A2 complaint the 2nd respondent does not have a case that the petitioners herein had insulted her modesty as a woman, or that they had intruded into her privacy in any manner. If at all the petitioners had spread or published any insulting and defamatory matters, she can initiate prosecution for defamation under Section 500 IPC, provided, the allegations would come under the definition of defamation under ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.08.29 16:34:47 +0530 Section 499 IPC. Any way mere insult or insulting words, or abuse will not attract a prosecution under Section 509 IPC. In this case there is absolutely nothing in the complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent, or in the final report submitted by the police to indicate that the petitioners had in any manner insulted her modesty or intruded into her privacy. Merely insulting a woman is different from insulting the modesty of woman. The subject of insult for a prosecution under Section 509 IPC must be the modesty of woman and not the woman as such. When there is nothing to make out the essential elements of the offence under Section 509 IPC, the prosecution against the petitioners cannot proceed under the law. I find that the present prosecution is an abuse of legal and judicial process. If at all the 2 nd respondent has a grievance or complaint that the petitioners herein had made or published any defamatory material against her alleging misappropriation of amount, she will have to pursue appropriate remedy, if at all such allegations would constitute the offence of defamation. The present prosecution cannot proceed because the complaint does not contain the essential elements or ingredients of the offence under Section 509 IPC." 



                                                        ABHISHEK GOYAL

                                                        GOYAL    2025.08.29
                                                                   16:36:58
                                                                   +0530

56. Consequently, considering the sterling nature of testimony of the prosecutrix in so far as it related to the incident of October 2015, where the accused is asserted to have shown the complainant, her two obscene photographs in his mobile phone and asked her to make physical relationship with him, failing which, he threatened the complainant to forward the said photographs to her acquaintances, ingredients of offences under Sections 354A, 506 and 509 IPC, in the considered opinion of this Court, are proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Needless to further reiterate that the accused neither denied the ownership of the seized mobile phone nor of retrieval of such obscene photographs from the said mobile phone, few of which were identified by the complainant as her own. Needless to further mention that this Court has scrupulously analyzed the photographs and the CD containing the said photographs (Ex. P1) as well as the report of PW-8 (Ex. PW8/A(Colly.)) and other material placed on record to reach to the said conclusion. Correspondingly, it is observed by this Court that the defence raised by the accused, as aforenoted, finds no corroboration/credence from the testimony/evidence of any of the witness/defence witness. In so far as the ingredients of the said offences are concerned, from the material placed on record and the aforenoted judicial dictates, it is quite perceptible that the act of accused in showing the victim her obscene images and asking for sexual favors, besides, showing the victim such photographs against her will, falls under the domain of provisions under Section 354A(ii) and Section 354A(iii) IPC, respectively. Correspondingly, the act of the accused in threatening the complainant of circulating the said obscene images on her refusal to abide by his demands of sexual favour/physical relation as well as of the accused's exhibiting such obscene images to the ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL 2025.08.29 16:37:02 +0530 complainant/PW-2, thereby, intending the same to be seen by her, which intrudes her privacy, brings such act of the accused within the domains of offences under Section 506 IPC and Section 509 IPC, respectively. In fact, at this stage, this Court deems it pertinent to make a reference to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Gambhir v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr., Crl. Appeal 141/2025, dated 28.07.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Court, whilst being confronted with somewhat an akin situation, remarked, as under;