Key Points: - The High Court’s error in quashing the FIR is set aside; the Court directs taking cognizance upon police report for offences 354 and 509 IPC (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The ultimate test for outraging modesty is whether the offender’s action could shock the sense of decency of a woman (!) (!) (!) - Slapping a woman IAS officer in a gathering constitutes outraging modesty under IPC 354 and 509 based on allegations in the FIR (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Section 95 IPC does not apply to the allegations in the FIR given the seriousness of the act and its impact (!) (!) (!) - Courts should record reasons when overruling objections to a police report; failure to do so requires setting aside the order (Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra context) (!) (!) - The decision directs expeditious disposal of the cognizable offences within six months; and that the complaint regarding the same offences loses its independent existence under Section 210 Cr. P.C. due to this revival (!) (!) - State v. Bhajan Lal categories for quashing proceedings emphasize the need for rare and circumspect use of extraordinary powers; but the Court set aside the High Court’s quashing order here (!) (!) (!) - The police report’s content and the LR’s prior opinion do not bind the Magistrate; the Magistrate may take cognizance based on evidence presented at trial (!) (!) - The FIR registered on July 18, 1988 and the subsequent complaints form the basis for cognizable offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC (!) (!) (!) - The Court clarifies that a mere delay in FIR lodging (11 days) cannot by itself justify quashing, but is considered in the overall assessment of the quashing decision (!)

How to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr. P.C. without evaluating the probability or genuineness of the allegations?

What is the test for determining whether a woman's modesty has been outraged under IPC sections 354 and 509?

What are the circumstances under which a High Court may quash an FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent powers?