Insufficient evidence to sustain charges under Section 354 IPC; valid charges may persist under Section 352 IPC.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

28-11-2025

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 reported in 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 IPC . 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 IPC . 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 reported in (1995) 6 SCC 194 and Raju Pandurang Mahale reported in (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, according to him, the alleged act of the petitioner cannot be said to be an act of any combination of person and mind, and as such, it cannot be said to be an act of outraging the modesty of the victim.

11. It is also contended by Mr. Choudhury, lear