SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 2293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Jignesh Mevani @ Jignesh N. Mevani S/o Natwar Lal Parmar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Another – Respondents
Crl. Pet. No. 1132 of 2023
Decided On : 28-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : K.N. Choudhury, H.P. Nepal, S. Borthakur
For the Respondent: M. Phukan

Charges under Section 354 IPC cannot be sustained without evidence demonstrating intent to outrage modesty; however, a charge under Section 352 IPC was upheld based on allegations of using criminal force.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 352 and 354 - Petition for quashment of order framing charges - Charges framed under 352 and 354 IPC concerning alleged inappropriate behavior towards a police officer during official duty - PETITIONER discharged from Section 354 due to insufficient evidence indicating intention to outrage modesty; charge under Section 352 IPC upheld. (Paras 3, 8, 48)

(B) Legal principles on framing of charges - Court is not to meticulously examine evidence but must establish prima facie case from materials available, indicating strong suspicion for framing charges. Both Sections 354 and 352 require intention or knowledge as a necessary ingredient for establishing charges. (Paras 18, 22, 36)

(C) Assessment of modesty - Mere rude conduct without sexual overtone does not suffice to substantiate a charge under Section 354 IPC. The statements of the victim lacked credible evidence of any suggested sexual intent. (Paras 34, 37)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with multiple cases, and allegations arose during police transport. A police officer accused him of inappropriate behavior. He sought to quash the charges framed under IPC Sections 352 and 354.

Findings of Court:
Insufficient grounds to presume any charge under Section 354 IPC; however, prima facie evidence supports a charge under Section 352 IPC.

Issues: Whether charges framed were legally sustainable based on gathered evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled against the framing of charges under Section 354 IPC due to a lack of essential evidentiary elements, while confirming the charge under Section 352 IPC for use of criminal force.

Result: Petition partly allowed; the applicant is discharged from 354 IPC but is to be charged under 352 IPC.

Table of Content
1. assignment of the case to the bench (Para 1 , 2)
2. overview of the case background and charges framed (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments for trivial allegations not meeting section 354 ipc (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. prosecution's position on charge framing standards (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
5. standards for framing charges to see prima facie case (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. intent necessary under section 354 ipc (Para 23 , 24 , 36)
7. analysis of victim's statements regarding intent (Para 27 , 30 , 31)
8. court's assessment of evidence for sustaining charges (Para 32 , 33 , 41)
9. conclusion and order of the court (Para 42 , 49)
10. discharge decisions related to charges under ipc sections (Para 44 , 47)

JUDGMENT :

1. This matter is specially assigned to this Bench by Hon’ble the Chief Justice in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India , 2023 SCC Online SC 1463, as the petitioner herein is a Legislator.

2. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Borthakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Public Prosecutor (PP), Assam, for the respondents.

3. The present petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashment of an order dated 19.09.2023 passed in P.R.C. No. 900/2022 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, whereby charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 352 /354 IPC .

4. The facts in nutshell are that, on 21.04.2022, the petitioner was arrested in connection with Kokrajhar P.S. Case No.183/2022 registered under Sections 120 (B)/153(A)/295(A)/504/505(1)(b) (c)(2) IPC read with Section 66 of the Information Technology (I.T.) Act, 2000.

5. During police custody in connection with the aforementioned case, he was again shown to have been arrested on 26.04.2022 by Barpeta Road Police in connection with Barpeta Road Police Case No. 81/2022 which was registered under Sections 294 / 323/353/354 IPC , based on allegation of a lady police officer, respondent No.2, who alleged inappropriate behavior of the petitioner towards her, inside a police vehicle while he was taken from Guwahati to Kokrajhar in connection with Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. No.183/2022 after arrest. This is the case where charges against the petitioner were framed.

6. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted bail by a competent Court. While the petitioner was on bail, the investigating authority filed a charge sheet on 07.07.2022 under Sections 294 /353/354 IPC .

7. The matter was thereafter transferred for trial to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta and PRC No. 900/2022 was registered.

8. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 19.09.2023, charges were framed under Sections 352 /354 IPC against the petitioner while discharging him from the offences under Sections 294 /353 . This order is the subject matter of the present petition.

9. Mr. K.N.Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner while referring to the statements of the victim as well as the other police personnel present inside the vehicle recorded under Sections 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC contends that the allegations are too trivial to attract offence under Section 354 IPC as there is neither any suggestion of intend to outrage the modesty nor does it disclose any obstruction of a public servant on use of criminal force under Section 352 . Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in this regard places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Rupan Deol Bajaj Vs. KPS Gill , (1995) 6 SCC 194 and Raju Pandurang Mahale, (2004) 4 SCC 371.

10. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, referring to the statements of the witnesses and the victim argues that the alleged act cannot be said to be even suggestive of having any sexual tone according to the common notions of mankind; the action as alleged cannot be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. Therefore,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top