The intention to outrage modesty under Section 354 IPC can only be determined after a full trial, especially when counter FIRs exist.

JUDGMENT :

[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.]

1. At the outset it is submitted that, on 14^th 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 submissions canvassed on behalf of both the sides, I have gone through the record. On face of record, it appears that on 22.10.2021, the Respondent No.2/Informant lodged a report with Rahuri Police Station alleging that, on 22.10.2021 at about 10.30 a.m., she with her husband, brother in law and sister in law visited their field to see erection of electric pole in their field. At that time, the Accused visited there and told as to why they are erecting Electric Pole on bund of his field and asked them to erect such pole by leaving two feet distance from bund of his field. Thereafter, the Accused abused them in filthy language and assaulted her husband with fist and blows, therefore, the Respondent No.2, her sister in law-Vaishali intervened in said quarrel to separate both of them but the Accused caught hold of her hand with an intention to outrage her modesty. It is further alleged that, the Accused issued life threats to Respondent No.2 and her family members. On the basis of the said FIR, Crime No.0887/2021 came to be registered against the present Petitioner/Accused for the offence punishable under Section 354, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner canvassed that, on 22.10.2021, the Petitioner also lodged a FIR No.0885/2021 with Rahuri Police Station alleging that, on 22.10.2021 when he was doing agricultural operation work at that time, the Accused persons- Devrao Guldagad, Sanjay Guldagad, Karbhari Guldagad, Sheetal Guldagad (Respondent No.2) and Vaishali Guldagad quarreled with him on account of erection of electric pole on bund of his field and assaulted him with iron object, stick, fist and blows, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, he was hospitalized with Rural Hospital, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. According to the Petitioner, he sustained injuries on head at right side frontal bone, over back and chest. However, the Respondent No.2 (Complainant) lodged a FIR bearing Crime No.887/2021, afterthought subsequent to the lodging of the FIR by him.

7. It is further canvassed that, the Respondent No.2 has not stated in her complaint that, the Petitioner outraged her modesty with an intention to sexual overtures but said incident of caught holding hand allegedly occurred while intervening in quarrel between the Petitioner and Shri Karbhari Guldagad, the husband of the Respondent No.2. Therefore, the FIR lodged against the present Petitioner is concocted and continuation of criminal prosecution on the basis of said FIR would certainly amount to abuse of process of the Court, hence, prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR.

8. In support of these submissions the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner placed reliance on the case of Nitin Upadhyay and Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra; 2