The court held that allegations of verbal abuse must contain specific intent to insult a woman's modesty to meet legal standards under IPC Section 509.

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 23.01.2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‗Magistrate‘] in case arising out of FIR bearing No. 259/2013, registered for commission of offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‗ IPC ‘] at Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi, vide which respondent nos. 2 to 4 were discharged. The petitioner also assails the order dated 01.11.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‗Sessions Court‘] which upheld the order of the learned Magistrate.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as per FIR, are that on 05.07.2013, when the complainant, who was Vice-Principal of one school ‗S‘, located in Delhi, had reached the school at about 7:50 AM to mark her attendance, she had found that her attendance record for the period from 01.07.2013 to 04.07.2013 had been mutilated with red ink. She had thereafter approached the office of the Principal, where she had found respondent nos. 2 to 4 along with the Principal, Mr. K.P.S. Malik, to be present. During the course of her interaction with the Principal, he had allegedly used abusive language, passed obscene remarks, and attempted to assault her. Respondent no. 2, Mr. Hari Kishan, had also allegedly made shameful gestures and obscene remarks, whereas respondent no. 3, Mr. Anand Kumar, had abused her in indecent language and laughed with an eye wink when confronted. At that time, respondent no. 4 i.e. Mr. Rajinder Kumar, PGT (History), had also joined in and allegedly tried to overpower her, due to which the complainant had felt humiliated, distressed, and apprehensive of further harm, and had called the police by dialing 100 number. The complainant had further alleged that despite her repeated complaints to the Manager of the school, no action had been taken against the Principal, who was being given protection. She also alleged that no Women‘s Grievance Committee had been constituted in the school in violation of directions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. On the basis of her complaint made to the SHO, Police Station Moti Nagar, on 21.07.2013, the present FIR bearing came to be registered for commission of offence under Section 509 of the IPC .

3. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter ‗ Cr.P.C ‘] on 23.07.2013. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the learned Magistrate. After hearing arguments on charge, the learned Magistrate was pleased to frame charge only against accused no. 1 i.e. Mr. K.P.S. Malik, while discharge respondent nos. 2 to 4. The relevant observations of the learned Magistrate are as under:

"5. Arguments adduced on behalf of both the parties have been heard. In the present case FIR was registered 16 days after the incident, further complainant despite being an educated person working as vice-principal in a school did not make a formal complaint alleging incident of outraging modesty for 16 days i.e. till 21.07.2013 while the alleged incident was dated 05.07.2013. It is to be noted that complainant had given a written complaint on 05.07.2013, wherein she did not even mention presence of accused Hari Kishan, Anand Kumar and Rajender Kumar at the spot, further even in her elaborate complaint dated 05.07.2013 made to manager of the school, she did not talk about presence of accused Hari Kishan, Anand Kumar and Rajender Kumar at the spot of incident or the fact if they had abused her. Though, she made complaint about some previous misbehavior or negligen