JUDGMENT :

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.

1. Prayer in the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for quashing FIR No. 119 dated 14.02.2024, under Sections 120-B/294/354-A/509 of IPC Police Station Sector 10, Gurugram, District Gurugram, Haryana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. A written complaint to SHO, Police Station 10-A, Gurugram, was addressed by complainant stating that she was resident of G-172, Spaze Privvy, Sector 93, Gurugram and was working as Principal at Government Senior Secondary School, Nawada Fatehpur, Gurugram. Some residents in the housing society were operating a WhatsApp group in the name of Cultural WhatsApp Group and Deeraj Gupta along with several ladies and gentlemen from the society was member of the group. The day before, a member of the housing society Sh. K.P. Singhania, posted her profile with photo on his WhatsApp group. Accused Dheeraj Gupta with the intent to embarrass, humiliate, defame, insult her modesty and to annoy her passed a lewd comment, sexually coloured remark on her photo in the following terms ‘Jaane kitne dinon ke baad society me abb chand nikla’. He intentionally made the remark on a public platform, colluding with others who supported him and his message by posting messages in the WhatsApp Group. This was done to embarrass, sexually harass, annoy, humiliate, defame her in the society and insult her modesty. Due to the lewd sexually coloured remark of the accused in the group on a public platform, she felt embarrassed, sexually harassed, humiliated, insulted and annoyed and it adversely affected her image in the general public. She did not promptly report the matter to the police as some members of the society asked her to compromise with the accused but she did not wish to compromise her self respect and could not bear the insult. She requested that necessary action be taken against accused Dheeraj Kumar and his accomplices, they be booked and sentenced for committing offences punishable under Sections 294/509/354-A IV and 120-B IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR were fabricated, stemming out of personal vendetta and the remark made by the petitioner did not constitute any offence. Referring to the WhatsApp Chat at Page No. 37 to 40 of the paper book, he submitted that intent of the message posted by the petitioner and the reply by other members of the group, was never to insult the complainant. Rather, the text message was addressed to another member, not to the complainant. After the message was sent, other members of the group also responded to the message humorously. Intention (mens-rea) to commit the offence under Sections 294, 354-A and 509 IPC was totally missing. It was argued that the only evidence collected by the prosecution was a single remark made by the petitioner humorously which did not amount to an offence. Allegations in the FIR, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute necessary ingredients of offence for which petitioner was booked. Neither the words were obscene nor were intended to cause annoyance in a public place. The WhatsApp group was a private platform accessible only to selected members and did not qualify as a ‘public place’. There was no deliberate intent to sexually harass and insult the modesty of a woman. The comment made by the petitioner was an idiomatic expression commonly used in social interaction and could not be construed as a sexually coloured remark or an act of harassment. Police Investigation did not find any evidence to support the allegations of criminal conspiracy. The registration of FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner were clearly abuse of the legal process, motivated by personal vendetta and mala-fide intent to tarnish petitioner’s reputation.

4. It was further argued that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the complainant went a step further to involve all other members of the society and