The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intention to insult the modesty of a woman or intrude upon her privacy as an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 509 IPC.

Ajit Bharihoke, J.

1. S.K. Bhalla, the Petitioner herein vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is seeking following prayer:

(a) To call for the record of both the courts below and thereafter;

(b) To kindly, may be pleased to interfere in the impugned orders and to correct the mistake committed by both the courts below by setting aside the orders passed by them and by issuing directions to decide the case on merits according to law.

2. The facts leading to this petition are that the Petitioner is the owner of House No. XVI/70, Gali No. 2, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh. Respondent No. 2 in June, 2005, purchased a nearby property i.e. half of the house being House No. XVI/72, Gali No. 3, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. In May 2006, Respondent No. 2 with the assistance of Respondents No. 3 & 4 demolished the existing structure at property No. XVI/72, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh and raised new construction. He opened two windows at the first floor of the construction. The windows overlooked the courtyard of the property of the Petitioner. Petitioner protested against opening of the windows and on his request, Respondent No. 2 converted one of those windows into a ventilator. The Petitioner was not satisfied and he insisted on closing of the window as well as the ventilator. When the Respondents refused to oblige, Petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 509/109 IPC.

3. Learned M.M., in exercise of his powers under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure directed the local police station to register and investigate the case. Accordingly, FIR No. 465/2006 was registered at Police Station D.B. Gupta Road. Pursuant to the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the Respondents No. 2 to 4. Learned M.M. directed the complaint filed by the Petitioner to be clubbed with the charge sheet and took cognizance of the offence.

4. Learned M.M. vide his order dated 25th November, 2008 discharged the Respondents No. 2 to 4, observing that no case under Sections 509/109 IPC was made out. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a revision petition in the court of Sessions. His revision petition was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 29th May, 2009.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

6. Grievance of the Petitioner is that neither learned M.M. nor learned Additional Sessions Judge have understood the true import of Section 509 IPC. Petitioner submitted that the opening of windows by the Respondents, at first floor level, overlooking the courtyard of house of the Petitioner impinges upon the privacy and modesty of the female members of his family as those ladies cannot freely move around or talk or gossip in the courtyard because of the fear of anyone peeping through the window/ventilator opened at first floor level by the Respondents No. 2 to 4. Thus, the Petitioner has submitted that the refusal of Respondent No. 2 to close the window and the ventilator amounts to a deliberate act of insulting the modesty of female members of the Petitioner's family and it also amounts to intruding upon their privacy, which is an offence as defined under Section 509 IPC. Thus, it is contended that the Trial Court ought not have discharged Respondents No. 2 to 4. In support of this contention, Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Kerala High Court in the matter of M.M. Haries v. State of Kerala, 2005 (4) R. Cr.R. 579. In the said case, the question before the Hon'ble Judge of Kerala High Court was whether writing an obscene and vulgar letter and addressing the same to a woman would fall within the purview of Section 509 IPC and the Hon'ble Judge, after discussing the scope of expression making gesture held that 'writing of said letter would amount to an offence under Section 509 IPC'. In the said judgment, however, not much has been said about the int