Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Mr. Debashish Banerjee, Mr. Apalak Basu, Mr. Supreem Naskar, Mr. Mukul Biswas, Mr. Rakesh Jana.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kallol Bose, Mr. Suman Banerjee, Mr. Arnab Sinha, Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Mrs. Sujata Das.

Key Points: - The court quashed Kasba Police Station Case Nos. 355 of 2020 and 323 of 2020 under Section 509 IPC, and stayed/disposed of related proceedings. [9000473200038] - The judgment discusses the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 509 IPC, including intent to insult modesty, words/sounds/gestures, and targeting the woman to be heard/seen. (!) (!) (!) - It distinguishes between merely insulting a woman and insulting the modesty of a woman, stating that insult to modesty is required for Section 509 IPC. [9000473200029][9000473200031] - The complainant struck out the words "outraging my modesty" from her complaint, which affects the essential ingredient of outraging modesty. [9000473200013] (!) - The court found that the alleged words and the context did not prima facie constitute the offence, leading to quashing. [9000473200035] - Observes that the First Information Report is the sheet anchor of prosecution; absence of material particulars may justify quashing. [9000473200015] - The court emphasizes future consideration for students/teaching environment in its disposal. [9000473200036]

What is the appropriate remedy under Section 482 CrPC to quash a First Information Report involving alleged offences under Section 509 IPC?

What are the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC as discussed in the judgment?

What is the court's conclusion regarding whether the facts presented prima facie establish an offence under Section 509 IPC and the consequent quashing of proceedings?