IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that actions undermining a woman's modesty, such as public defamation, are serious offences under the IPC, warranting legal action regardless of procedural technicalities.

ORDER :

(M. Nagaprasanna, J.) :

The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.16321 of 2020, arising out of a crime in Crime No.60 of 2020 pending before the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for the offences under Sections 501, 504, 507 and 509 of IPC.

2. Facts, adumbrated, are as follows:-

A complaint comes to be registered on 19-03-2020 by the 2nd respondent/complainant, a married woman alleging that she was working as a Junior Health Assistant at a Primary Health Centre, Muttugaduru Village, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District and while discharging her duty had given her mobile number to the officers at the Centre. She began getting unexpected calls at odd hours from various numbers who also threatened to her life. When she made enquires about the phone calls received, it is informed that her mobile number was displayed on the walls of gents toilet at Majestic bus stand, Bangalore calling her “a call girl”. The complaint further alleged that some staff known to her and being with her had done this and sought investigation to be conducted through a complaint. The crime comes to be registered by CEN Crime Police Station in Crime No.60 of 2020.

3. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner and another for offences punishable under Sections 501, 504, 507 and 509 of the IPC. The filing of the charge sheet drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. This Court in terms of its order dated 09.03.2022 grants an interim order of stay on the score that the offences registered at the time of registration of crime were the ones punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, both of which were non-cognizable offences and for non- cognizable offences permission of the learned Magistrate to register the FIR was imperative and such permission was granted in the case at hand by the word “permitted”. Therefore, all further proceedings were interdicted and the said interim order is in subsistence even to-day and no further trial has taken place against the petitioner.

4. Heard Sri Tejas N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri R. Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 / complainant.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that what was registered as a crime in Crime No.60 of 2020 was for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. They are admittedly non- cognizable offences. Therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have applied his mind prior to grant of any permission to register the FIR. He would submit that the lis stands covered by plethora of judgments rendered by this Court with particular reference to the decision reported in VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2020 Kar 630. On the merit of the matter, the learned counsel would submit that there is no independent evidence against the petitioner. CW-5 at the time of investigation reveals the name of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that, he was asked to write on the walls of a toilet for men at the Majestic Bus stand, Bangalore, that the complainant was a ‘call girl’. It is only that has led the petitioner into these proceedings. He would submit that voluntary statement of another cannot be taken as evidence to pin down the petitioner. He would seek quashment of the entire proceedings.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the complainant submits that the complainant was not aware of what offences should be alleged when she registers the complaint. It was the duty of the Station House Officer or the Officer in-charge of the Police Station to have registered appropriate crime looking at the facts of the complaint as the complainant had produced all the necessary material to the Police Superintendent at Chitradurga D