Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
Kondiram Manjabapu Guldagad – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.]
1. At the outset it is submitted that, on 14th December, 2024, both the counsels appearing for the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 jointly submitted about amicable settlement of dispute as both are blood relatives, however, today they have fairly stated that the parties are not willing to settle the dispute, hence, they wanted to argue the matter on merits.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of both sides heard finally.
3. Heard Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Markad h/f. Advocate Mr. B.B. Shelke, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 and the learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
4. By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks challenge to the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision Application No.31/2024, whereby the learned Revisional Court affirmed the order passed by the learned JMFC, Rahuri below Exh.9 in RCC No.12/2022, thereby declined to discharge the Petitioner/Accused for the offence punishable under Section 354, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C.
5. Having regard to the sub
The intention to outrage modesty under Section 354 IPC can only be determined after a full trial, especially when counter FIRs exist.
Summoning of an accused under IPC Section 354 requires clear evidence; unexplained delays and lack of corroborating witnesses render allegations insufficient.
The absence of prima facie evidence in criminal allegations justifies quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
The court held that the allegations of assault and outraging modesty were sufficient to proceed with a trial under Sections 323 and 354 IPC.
The court established that complaints of harassment under IPC Sections 354 and 509 must demonstrate assault and intent, which were absent; thus, quashing the FIR to prevent abuse of legal process.
FIR for outraging modesty by pulling dupatta and intimidation in boundary dispute quashed under inherent powers as allegations fail prima facie test, proceedings mala fide counterblast to civil land ....
The conviction under Section 354 IPC was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intent to outrage modesty, while the conviction under Section 323 IPC was modified to a lenient sentence.
The court found that where evidence is insufficient and there are contradictions in victim testimony, doubts benefit the accused, leading to the quashing of conviction under non-compoundable offences....
Charges under Section 354 IPC cannot be sustained without evidence demonstrating intent to outrage modesty; however, a charge under Section 352 IPC was upheld based on allegations of using criminal f....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
