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
| 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,
S.P.S. Rathore Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr.
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 f....
The court emphasized that charges must be framed with precision, highlighting the absence of essential elements for IPC Section 354 and the need to consider dissemination under Section 354-C and IT A....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 354 IPC, concluding that the appellant's actions constituted an outrage of modesty, supported by the victim's testimony and corroborating evidence.
The court upheld the conviction under minor offences despite failure to substantiate major charges, emphasizing mens rea in determining the conviction under Section 354 IPC.
At the time of framing charge, the court is to form a reasonable presumption regarding commission of the offences by the accused on the basis of prima facie materials on record.
The court established that at the charge framing stage, a strong suspicion of guilt suffices to proceed, without requiring proof of the allegations.
Summoning of an accused under IPC Section 354 requires clear evidence; unexplained delays and lack of corroborating witnesses render allegations insufficient.
The court established that political protests do not justify claims of wrongful restraint or assault unless the essential ingredients of the offences are met.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.