Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 172

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Madhushree Datta – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka & Anr. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4884 of 2024 [arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 10082 of 2019]
With
Badrinarayana Jaganathan - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal appeal no. 4883 of 2024 [arising out of S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) No. 10115/2019]
Decided on : 24-01-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Dr. J. P. Dhanda, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Hurt, insult, criminal intimidation and use of filthy language – There is no basis for prosecution to set forth concept of liability of employer or for overt acts of its employees – To establish ingredients of Section 504 of IPC, it must be demonstrated, based on available material, that there was intentional insult with intent or knowledge that such insult would provoke either disturbance of public peace or commission of any other offence.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 115, 352, 351, 79 and 62] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Hurt, insult, criminal intimidation and use of filthy language – Complaint merely states that complainant was forcibly ejected from Company's office by security personnel, who allegedly attempted to assault, physically harass, and threaten her with dire consequences – Complaint does not directly attribute any voluntary act of causing hurt to complainant by any of two accused – There is no basis for prosecution to set forth concept of liability of employer or for overt acts of its employees in this matter – To establish ingredients of Section 504 of IPC, it must be demonstrated, based on available material, that there was intentional insult with intent or knowledge that such insult would provoke either disturbance of public peace or commission of any other offence – From materials on record, ingredients of offence under Section 504 of IPC are not satisfied – It will be essential for this Court to carefully assess evidence presented, in order to determine whether there is sufficient material to establish intention and knowledge on part of appellants, to insult modesty of complainant – Appellants' actions do not demonstrate requisite intent or knowledge that would reasonably lead to conclusion that their conduct could provoke such a severe emotional response as to constitute insult to a woman's modesty – Prima facie ingredients of an offence under Section 509 of IPC have not been disclosed – Complaint does not specifically attribute any threats or intimidation to second accused – Ingredients of Section 506 of IPC, prima facie, are not made out against him – Entire criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 17, 18, 22, 24, 27, 29, 32, 35 and 45)
Facts of the case:
Points for determination that emerge for decision are:
(i) Whether, based on materials on record, prima facie, ingredients of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 of IPC are made out, even allegations are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety?
(ii) Whether charge-sheet and related criminal proceedings against appellants, are liable to be quashed?
Findings of Court:
Legal principles governing exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. PC for quashing complaints and criminal proceedings have been formulated by this Court in a plethora of decisions. We see no reason to burden this judgment of ours by referring to the same. However, we are fully convinced that allowing the criminal proceedings to proceed against the appellants would amount to an abuse of the legal process and result in a travesty of justice.
Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - To establish Section 504, it must be shown that there was intentional insult with intent or knowledge that such insult would provoke breach of public peace or commission of any other offence (!) (!) . - The term 'filthy language' alone, without contextual evidence of intent to insult modesty, does not attract Section 509; intention and knowledge to insult woman's modesty must be established (!) (!) (!) . - No prima facie case is made out under Sections 323, 504, 506, or 509, as the complaint and chargesheet lack essential facts and specific allegations against the appellants (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The proceedings are characterized as an abuse of legal process, potentially malicious, aimed at coercing a civil settlement, leading to quashing of the chargesheet (!) (!) . - Even if allegations are taken at face value, the ingredients of the offences are not satisfied, and the charge under Section 511 cannot stand (!) (!) . - The High Court's order is set aside, and the appeals are allowed, with clear findings recorded herein having no bearing on the pending labour court reference (!) (!) (!) .

What are the essential ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code?

What are the essential ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code?

Whether the chargesheet and criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed in the present case?

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

THE APPEAL

1. By a common impugned judgment and order dated 31st July, 2019¹[impugned order], a learned Judge of the High Court of Karnataka²[High Court] dismissed Criminal Petition No. 3961 of 2015 (Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.) and Criminal Petition No. 3962 of 2015 (Madhushree Datta vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.), both filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973³[Cr. PC], seeking quashing of the chargesheet filed under Section 173(2), Cr. PC and the entire proceedings in Case Crime No. 53073 of 2014, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore⁴[ACMM].

2. The accused appellants⁵[appellants] - Madhushree Datta⁶[first accused] and Badrinarayana Jaganathan⁷[second accused] - have taken exception to the impugned order by presenting these appeals.

FACTS

3. The proceedings before the ACMM have, as its genesis, an incident of 25th October, 2013. The second respondent as complainant⁸[complainant] lodged a complaint dated 26th October, 2013 with the Sub-Inspector of Police, H.A.L. Police Station, Marathahalli, Bangalore, against M/s Juniper Networks India Private Limited⁹[Company] and the appellants. The complainant asserted that she was employed as a Technical System Analyst at the Company, where she was subjected to ongoing harassment by the management. She claimed that she was coerced into resigning under duress, with the threat of immediate termination if she did not comply. Specifically, the complainant alleged that on October 25, 2013, between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., the first accused, who held the position of Human Resources Manager at the Company, demanded that the complainant resign under threat of immediate dismissal. Furthermore, the first accused, allegedly instructed the complainant not to return to work and confiscated her personal belongings, including her laptop, bag, wallet, money, credit cards et cetera. The complainant further asserted that the laptop contained proprietary intellectual property, specifically codes and other work, that she had personally created. In addition, the complainant alleged that the management ordered her removal from the premises, with security personnel escorting her out and reportedly engaging in behaviour amounting to physical harassment, assault and threatening with dire consequences.

4. Following the above complaint, a Non-Cognizable Report¹⁰[NCR] was registered on 26th October, 2013. The NCR states that the employees of the Company, namely the appellants, subjected the complainant to both mental and physical harassment by confiscating her laptop, which contained her data. The complainant subsequently filed a formal complaint seeking an inquiry and investigation into the matter, following her forcible termination from employment on October 25, 2013.

5. More than 2 (two) months later, a First Information Report¹¹[FIR] was lodged by the complainant accusing the Company and the appellants of having committed offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506, 509, 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860¹²[IPC]. The FIR states that the Company, along with the first accused, subjected the complainant to both physical and mental torture. They allegedly confiscated the laptop issued to the complainant and forcibly evicted her from the Company.

6. Following the registration of the FIR, an investigation was conducted into the alleged offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 of the IPC. A chargesheet was filed on 23rd April 2014, arraigning the appellants as accused. The chargesheet alleges that the appellants physically assaulted the complainant and confiscated the laptop provided by the Company, preventing her from retrieving the data stored on it. Additionally, the appellants were accused of scolding the complainant in “filthy language” and forcibly terminating her employment. Furthermore, with the assistance of security personnel, the appellants are said to have had the complainant removed f