Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1802

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Ramesh Kumar & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Others – Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 1079 of 2022
Decided On : 30-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advs. General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advs. General, Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Adv.

FIR for outraging modesty by pulling dupatta and intimidation in boundary dispute quashed under inherent powers as allegations fail prima facie test, proceedings mala fide counterblast to civil land issue evident from police diaries.

Headnote:(A) Cr.P.C., 1973 - Section 482 - IPC - Sections 354 & 506 - Quashing of FIR - Petition under inherent powers to quash FIR alleging assault to outrage modesty by pulling dupatta and criminal intimidation during halt of boundary wall construction on disputed land pending demarcation application - Allegations, even taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute offence under Section 354 as act too remote in context of civil dispute - General Diary entries prior to FIR show parties agreed to await demarcation - Proceedings manifestly mala fide, instituted to wreak vengeance due to land dispute - Falls within category 7 of quashing guidelines to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice. (Paras 26-39)

(B) Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Exercise sparingly and cautiously - Court not to act as trial Court or appreciate evidence - Only consider documents veracity beyond challenge like General Diary entries carrying presumption of correctness under Evidence Act Section 35 - CD of conversation not considered. (Paras 19-25)

(C) IPC Section 354 - Outraging modesty - Essence is culpable intention - Act must shock sense of decency - Pulling dupatta in altercation over land construction, without touching body or demonstrating sexual intent, insufficient to constitute offence. (Paras 30-33)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed application for land demarcation amid boundary dispute. Respondent commenced boundary wall construction; petitioners called to halt work, informed police (General Diary No.11). Police visited spot (General Diary No.12), parties assured no construction till demarcation. FIR lodged two days later alleging petitioner pulled complainant's dupatta with bad intention at 9:30 a.m., threatened her and workers.

Findings of Court:
FIR and resultant proceedings quashed; no case made out, motivated by civil dispute.

Issues: Whether FIR allegations disclose offences under Sections 354 & 506 IPC; whether proceedings abuse of process due to underlying boundary dispute and prior police diaries contradicting FIR timeline.

Ratio Decidendi: Applying quashing guidelines, allegations improbable in civil context; pre-FIR diaries establish counter-narrative and mala fide; inherent powers exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent oppression in disputes coloured as criminal.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. fir quashing petition based on land boundary dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. allegations of assault to outrage modesty under s354 ipc. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. bhajan lal guidelines limit s482 quashing powers. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. pulling dupatta does not outrage woman's modesty. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. official gd entries indicate fir as counter-blast. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
6. proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), for quashing of FIR No.42/2021, dated 11.10.2021, (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question) registered, under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), with Police Station Renukaji, District Sirmaur, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), by way of Police Challan No.232 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. versus Parth Goel & Others.

2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the ground that the FIR, in question, has been lodged at the instance of respondent No.3, whereas, according to them, petitioner No.1 and father of respondent No.3, had a boundary dispute, as their lands are adjacent to each other.

3. According to the petitioner, in order to resolve the said dispute, petitioner No.1, had moved an application dated 30.09.2021 for the demarcation of the land. During the pendency of the application for demarcation, the father of respondent No.3, started raising boundary wall, without waiting for the outcome of the demarcation application.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 11.10.2021, respondent No.3, along with mason and labourers, reached on the spot and started raising boundary wall, upon which, petitioner No.1, made a call to the father of respondent No.3 at about 10.00 a.m. on 11.10.2021 and requested him not to raise any boundary wall on the disputed portion till the demarcation is conducted, however, on phone, father of respondent No.3, misbehaved with petitioner No.1 and got adamant to raise the boundary wall.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said conversation has been recorded and transcript of the same is Annexure P-2. Thereafter, the petitioners reached on the spot and asked the mason and labourers to stop the work, as demarcation of the land has not yet been taken place, but, respondent No.3 started hurling abuses to the petitioners and instead of involving themselves in confrontation, petitioner No.2, inform the police and sought police help. Thereafter, the police entered said information in General Diary No.11, dated 11.10.2021.

6. Petitioners had also relied upon the General Diary Entry No.12, dated 11.10.2021, recorded at 3.34.40 p.m., Annexure P-5. On the basis of the said General Diary entry, it has been pleaded that police has visited the spot and inquired the matter as per General Diary No.12 and had stated before the Police that they will resolve the issue and till the demarcation of the land, they will not carry out construction. Relied upon the General Diary entry No.12, it is the further case of the petitioners that a concocted story of the alleged incident, which had taken place at 9.30 a.m., has been introduced.

7. It is the further case of the petitioners that no case is made out against them and the FIR, in question, has been lodged just to harass them on account of the dispute with regard to the demarcation of the land and the FIR, in question, is stated to be lodged, just to blackmail the petitioners, so that they may give up. As such, according to the petitioners, the FIR is nothing, but, abuse of process of law.

8. On the basis of the above facts, the FIR, in questio