Knowledge or intention is not the sole criterion for offence under Section 354 IPC; mere knowledge that modesty may be outraged suffices.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 01/09/2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 1558 of 2010 whereby learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant herein.

2. Brief facts:
(a) SPS Rathore - the appellant - accused, a member of the prestigious service of the country, was on deputation with Bhakhra Beas Management Board (BBMB), Chandigarh as Director (Vigilance & Security) at the relevant time. He also founded the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association (HLTA) in the year 1988.
(b) The office of HLTA was established in the garage of House No. 469, Sector 6, Panchkula, an under construction building owned by the appellant - accused which was divided into three portions wherein front portion was being used as the office of HLTA and the other two portions were being utilized by T. Thomas and Kuldeep Singh, Coach and Manager respectively of the Association for residential purposes. HLTA enrolled several member players who were mostly nearby residents of Panchkula on payment of monthly subscription.
(c) Ms. Ruchika (since deceased), daughter of Shri. S. C. Girhotra and Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu, daughter of Shri. Anand Prakash and Madhu Prakash (the complainant), both aged about 15 years, residents of Panchkula got themselves enrolled as members of the HLTA. Both of them were good friends and used to go together for practice at the Tennis court. The appellant - accused was also a frequent visitor to the said Tennis court. One day, when Ms. Ruchika informed the appellant - accused about her plan to go abroad, the appellant - accused met her father - Shri. S. C. Girhotra on 11/08/1990 in order to persuade him to not to send his daughter out of the country for specialized tennis coaching and promised that special coaching would be arranged for her at HLTA itself and also asked him to send Ruchika to his office on the very next day in connection with the same. Shri Girhotra informed the same to his daughter - Ruchika and asked her to meet the appellant - accused in his office on 12/08/1990.
(d) On 12/08/1990, Ms. Ruchika visited the house of Ms. Aradhana and told her about the visit of the appellant - accused to her house and also that he had called her in his office. When both of them were practicing in the tennis court, Paltoo - the ball picker, informed Ms. Ruchika that the appellant - accused had called her in his office. Accordingly, Ms. Ruchika along with Ms. Aradhana went to meet the appellant - accused who was standing outside the office at that particular point of time. The appellant - accused insisted them to come inside the office. On his insistence, both the girls went inside the office. The appellant - accused got fetched one chair which was occupied by Ms. Aradhana and Ms. Ruchika kept standing on the right side of Ms. Aradhana while the appellant - accused sat in his chair which was on the other side of the table. The appellant - accused requested Ms. Aradhana to call for Mr. Thomas - the Coach. Accordingly, Ms. Aradhana went outside leaving behind the appellant - accused and Ms. Ruchika in the office. Ms. Aradhana asked the person who fetched the chair for her in the office to inform the Coach to come to the office of the appellant - accused. However, the Coach refused to come.
(e) Immediately thereafter, when Ms. Aradhana returned to the office, she witnessed that Ms. Ruchika was in the grip of the appellant - accused, who was holding one hand of Ruchika in his hand and his other hand was around her waist. The appellant - accused was pulling her towards his chest so as to embrace her and Ruchika was trying to push him back with her free hand.
(f) On seeing Ms. Aradhana (PW 13), the appellant - accused got frightened and released Ms. Ruchika and fell on his chair. The appellant - accused asked Ms. Aradhana to go out of his room again and personally bring the coach with her. The appellant - accused insisted Ruchik