IMPORTANT POINT
Section 354A of the IPC is gender-specific and cannot be applied to female accused, necessitating quashing of charges lacking specific allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Petitioner/accused has filed this criminal revisional application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the proceeding in connection with Netaji Nagar Police Station Case No. 312 of 2018 dated 15th September, 2018 under Sections 354A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 corresponding to ACGR No. 4463/2018 pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

2. The factual matrix, leading to filing of this instant revisional application, is as under:

2a. On 15th September, 2018 opposite party no. 2 had lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Netaji Nagar Police Station against four accused persons including the petitioner herein alleging therein that Samir Pandit and the petitioner herein tried to torture the mother of the de-facto complainant. The accused Samir Pandit came to her house and entered into the room of the de-facto complainant while she was changing her dress and at that time the said accused person tried to molest her with ill motive. However, the de-facto complainant succeeded to rescue herself. As a result, Netaji Nagar Police Station Case No. 312 of 2018 was registered under Sections 354A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said Samir Pandit is the biological father of the petitioner. In the FIR, another allegation made against the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner being the daughter of Samir Pandit along with others always instigated and tortured the mother of the complainant but no specific and particulars of alleged offences made against the present petitioner.

2b. It is further case of the petitioner that without proper investigation, purportedly a charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 188/2018 dated 12.10.2018 under Sections 354A/506/34 of the IPC has been filed against four accused persons including the petitioner though the petitioner was totally innocent. She had no role to play in the alleged offences. There is no sufficient material available in the charge sheet to proceed with the case against the petitioner. Therefore, the entire proceeding against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law which requires immediate interference by this Hon’ble High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.

2c. Besides the above facts, the charge sheet filed under Section 354A of the IPC qua the petitioner is incongruous because Section 354A cannot apply against a female accused. It can only apply qua a male accused person because the Section opens with the term “a man”. As such, the entire proceeding is required to be quashed against the petitioner.

Under the above facts and circumstances, the instant criminal revisional application has been filed seeking relief as prayed for.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. The first limb of argument made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the ingredients of Section 354A and Section 354 are completely different. Here, after filing charge sheet Section 354A was made applicable against the present petitioner though it ought not be applicable towards a female accused. Section 354A of IPC specifically opens up with the term “a man”. As such, charge under Section 354A of the IPC can only apply qua a male accused. Furthermore, from the entire materials available in the charge sheet, it would be evident that no specific or particular allegation made against the petitioner towards assault or use of criminal force justifying the charge even under Section 354 of IPC and that the same cannot be metamorphosed into the charge under Section 354 of the IPC in absence of any material far less any cogent material.

3a. The second limb of argument made by the learned counsels that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and victim girl recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC and FIR as such it goes in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner