THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10109 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.97 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet, registered for the offences under Sections 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the petitioner had no intention to insult the de facto complainant and he never tried to outrage her modesty and that the allegations of the complaint also do not attract the said offence. The allegations reveal only injury to the petitioner which is simple in nature and that they do not at all attract the offence under Section 354 of IPC. The petitioner has no animosity against the de facto complainant and that implicating the petitioner under such allegations is not proper and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against him.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that the complaint lodged by the victim and her 161 Cr.P.C. statement reveal the acts of the petitioner, wherein it is alleged that he has touched the chest of the petitioner and also he caught hold of the collar of the victim and has abused her, thus, the acts do reveal the allegation under Section 354 of IPC and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The complaint is lodged by the mother of the victim and the allegations leveled in the complaint do point out the offences under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC against the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this High Court in Pedda Geliche Divasekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 (1) ALD (Crl.) 716 (AP), wherein it was held that Section 354 of IPC is intended to punish as a special vice and an offence against public morality and decency. The essence of the offence is the intention on the part of the accused to outrage the modesty of a woman. Modesty is the quality of being modest which in respect of a woman means decent in manner and conduct, chaste, distancing

from indecency. Decency means propriety of behaviour. Behavior which is inconsonance of good taste which includes avoidance of obscene language and gesture and avoidance of undue exposure of person. It connotes respectability. Decorum means propriety of speech and manner and maintenance of dignity. Mere assault on a woman or causing hurt to a woman cannot constitute an offence under Section 354 of IPC.

8. The learned counsel has further relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 4 SCC 371 wherein it was held that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter and that the reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in this section is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. The act of pulling a women, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman; and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object.

9. By relying on these two decisions, the learned counsel has argued that since the alleged acts of the petitioner do not constitute an offence under Section 354 of IPC, he therefore, prayed to quash the same.

10. The above cited decisions themselves would clarify the point that the behavior which is in consonance with good taste and which includes avoidance of obscene language and gesture and avoidance of undue exposure of person, are all the inherent qualities to save the modesty of a woman. The