ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 116 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, registered for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The petitioner is the accused in the aforesaid Calendar Case. Basing on a report lodged by 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, a case in Crime No. 24 of 2019 of Mangalagiri Town police station was registered against the petitioner/accused, and after completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. The allegations, in brief, of the charge sheet are as follows:

2nd respondent/defacto complainant is a house wife. Municipal authorities were digging a canal in front of their house in Koppuravuri Colony, Mangalagiri town. On 25.10.2020 at about 2.30 PM, when LW-2 P. Venkateswara Rao and other colony members were discussing the issue, the accused, residing in the lane beside, went and had talk with him and insulted him and others. On that, when 2nd respondent/defacto complainant asked the petitioner/accused as to why he was insulting LW-2 P. Venkateswara Rao, for which the petitioner/accused abused her in filthy language, placed his hand on her shoulder and pushed away her. In this regard, a report came to be lodged by her to police.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even accepting the entire accusations in the charge-sheet to be true, still no prima facie case for the offence alleged would attract as against the petitioner, for the reason that an altercation took place between the petitioner and 2nd respondent and in connection with the same, the petitioner allegedly pushed 2nd respondent by putting his hand on her shoulder and abused her. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner herein to outrage modesty of 2nd respondent.

4. Though notice has been served on 2nd respondent, there is no representation on her behalf.

5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent-State would contend that there are accusations in the charge sheet, and whether there was intention on the part of the petitioner or not, is a question of fact and the same has to be decided in the course of trial.

6. On 27.01.2020, 2nd respondent/defacto complainant lodged a report alleging that in front of her house, municipal authorities were digging a canal and on 25.01.2020 at about 2.30 PM, LW-2 P. Venkateswara Rao and Others were discussing the issue and at that time, the petitioner/accused, who was residing in the adjacent lane, went and spoke to him in an insulting manner. On hearing the same, 2nd respondent/defacto complainant asked the petitioner/accused as to why he was insulting LW-2 P. Venkateswara Rao. On which, the petitioner/accused abused her in filthy language and placed his hand on her shoulder and pushed her away.

7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even accepting the accusations to be true, there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to outrage modesty of 2nd respondent in order to attract the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision in Rupan Deol Bajaj and Another vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another, (1995) 6 SCC 194 wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 17 and 20).

“17. It is undoubtedly correct that if intention or knowledge is one of the ingredients of any offence, it has got to be proved like other ingredients for convicting a person. But, it is also equally true that those ingredients being states of mind may not be proved by direct evidence and may have to be inferred from the attending circumstances of a given case. Since, however, in the instant case we are only at the incipient stage we have to ascertain, only prima facie, whether Mr. Gill by