IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Pradeep Kumar V.L. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala and Others - Respondents
Crl. MC No. 5513 of 2023
Decided On : 18-02-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 and 354 - Quashing of proceedings - Allegations of assault and outraging modesty during mediation - Ingredients of offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC established prima facie, warranting trial - Quashment petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 21)
(B) Ingredients of Offences - For Section 354 IPC, assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty is essential - The modesty of a woman encompasses physical, moral, and psychological aspects. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of assaulting the defacto complainant during mediation, allegedly kicked her and pressed her breast, leading to charges under Sections 323 and 354 IPC. (Paras 3, 8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations made out prima facie warranted a trial for the offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC. (Paras 21)
Issues: Whether the ingredients to attract offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC are made out from the prosecution records. (Paras 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations of assault and outraging modesty were sufficient to proceed with a trial, emphasizing the importance of modesty in legal considerations. (Paras 21)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
(A. Badharudeen, J.)
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash Annexure.A1 and all further proceedings in C.C. No.194/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady, arose out of Crime No.80 of 2023 of Mananthavady Police Station, Wayanad. The petitioner herein is the accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Also heard the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/2nd respondent. Perused the records and relevant materials available.
3. In a nutshell, the prosecution allegation is that, the accused herein committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for short]. The specific case of the prosecution is that, on 25.01.2021 there was a mediation at the office of a document writer in connection with certain documents procured by the accused, while he was working as a staff in the firm run by the defacto complainant and her husband. The specific allegation is that, while the discussion was going on, at about 1.40 hours, the accused, who sat infront of the defacto complainant taken a plastic stool by using his legs and this time the shoes of the accused hit on the left knee of the defacto complainant and thereby she sustained pain. Since the defacto complainant thought that it was not intentional, she forgave the same. But, thereafter the accused intentionally kicked on the left foot of the defacto complainant with shoes he wore and thereby she suffered pain and there was swelling. Then, she moved towards her husband. Later, the accused became furious towards the defacto complainant and her husband and he went out. When the defacto complainant moved towards the door, the accused entered into the office and pressed on her breast and pushed her aside, infront of her husband and other mediators. This is the context on which the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences by the accused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that, the ingredients to attract offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC not made out from the prosecution materials. In this connection, she placed a decision of this Court in Vaheed M.A. v. K.K. Lathika reported in [2024 (6) KHC 196 : 2024 KHC OnLine 885 : 2024 (5) KLT SN 19], where this Court held as under:
“The test of outrage of modesty is to be determined by thinking whether a reasonable man will think that the act of the offender was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the modesty of the woman. I am of the considered opinion that, even if there is assault or use of force from the side of the petitioners towards the complainants, the offence under Section 354 IPC is not made out.”
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was helping the defacto complainant in her firm, without accepting any remuneration and on a fine morning, he was expelled from his job by the defacto complainant and her husband, without any reason. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, the allegation put forward by the defacto complainant for immediate expulsion was procurement of certain documents by the petitioner in relation to certain property. Thereafter, there was mediation talks between the parties several times and there occurred an altercation on the day of occurrence. But, the defacto complainant and her husband failed in getting back the documents. After failure of the mediation, a false case was foisted against the petitioner by the defacto complainant. Therefore, the allegation as to commission of offence under Section 323 of IPC also would not attract in this case. Therefore, the matter would require quashment.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the petitioner is a person, who has worked as a Civil Police Officer in the Kerala
The court held that the allegations of assault and outraging modesty were sufficient to proceed with a trial under Sections 323 and 354 IPC.
The conviction under Section 354 IPC was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intent to outrage modesty, while the conviction under Section 323 IPC was modified to a lenient sentence.
The court established that complaints of harassment under IPC Sections 354 and 509 must demonstrate assault and intent, which were absent; thus, quashing the FIR to prevent abuse of legal process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the elements required to prove the charge and the essence of a woman's mode....
The court established that the intention to outrage a woman's modesty is crucial in determining guilt under Section 354 IPC.
The intention to outrage modesty under Section 354 IPC can only be determined after a full trial, especially when counter FIRs exist.
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.
The absence of prima facie evidence in criminal allegations justifies quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
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.