SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 1016

A.S.ANAND, M.K.MUKHERJEE
Rupan Deol Bajaj: B. R. Bajaj – Appellant
Versus
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill: State Of Punjab – Respondent


Advocates:
ANITA SHENOY, C.JAYRAJ, DARSHAN SINGH, G.L.SANGHI, INDIRA JAISINGH, JATINDER K.BHATIA, K.SULTAN, K.T.S.Tulsi, KAMINI JAISWAL, KRISHAN KUMAR GOGNA, R.S.Suri, SUMAN JYOTI KHAITAN, SUNIL JAIN

Judgement Key Points

How to determine when modesty of a woman is outraged under IPC sections 354 and 509? What is the test for ascertaining whether an act constitutes outraging of modesty in a high-profile social setting? What are the circumstances under which a High Court may quash an FIR or complaint under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 in light of Bhajan Lal guidelines?

Key Points: - The judgment defines the test for outraging modesty as actions capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. (!) (!) - It holds that slapping a senior IAS officer in the presence of elites can amount to outraging modesty under IPC 354 and 509, with consideration of intention inferred from attending circumstances. (!) (!) - It reiterates Bhajan Lal categories and cautions the extraordinary powers to quash should be used sparingly, setting out categories including when FIR/compliant do not prima facie disclose an offense, or are absurd or purely frivolous. (!) (!) (!)

How to determine when modesty of a woman is outraged under IPC sections 354 and 509?

What is the test for ascertaining whether an act constitutes outraging of modesty in a high-profile social setting?

What are the circumstances under which a High Court may quash an FIR or complaint under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 in light of Bhajan Lal guidelines?


JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J. – Special leave granted. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. These two appeals have been heard together as they arise out of one and the same incident. Facts leading to these appeals and relevant for their disposal are as under:

3. On July 29,1988, Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj, an Officer of the Indian Administrative Service (I.A.S.) belonging to the Punjab Cadre and then working as the Special Secretary, Finance, lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh Union Territory alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 342, 352, 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) by Mr. K.P.S. Gill, the Director General of Police, Punjab on July 18, 1988 at a dinner party. Treating that complaint as the First Information Report (FIR) a case was registered by the Central Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh and investigation was taken up. Thereafter on November 22,1988, her husband Mr. B.R. Bajaj, who also happens to be a senior I.A.S. officer of the Punjab Cadre, lodged a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the same offences, alleging, inter alia, that Mr. Gill being a high ranking Police










































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top