The court emphasized the need for a strong emotional reaction to qualify as an outrage and found the words used lacked the potential to provoke such a reaction. It also considered the conduct of the complainant and the absence of evidence indicating persistent unwanted social conduct by the accused. The court highlighted the importance of maintaining a balanced approach and the need for sufficient material on record to frame a charge under Section 509 IPC.

JUDGMENT

Index to the Judgment

Factual Background

Arguments Addressed Before This Court

Law on Framing of Charge And Discharge

Law of Section 509 of Indian Penal Code

i. Section 509 of IPC

ii. Essential Ingredients of Section 509 of IPC

iii. Difference Between Section 354 And Section 509 of IPC

iv. Judicial Precedents Apropos `Outraging The Modesty of A Woman

The Test of Outraging Modesty of A Women

i. Defining `Modesty'

ii. Defining `Outrage'

iii. Defining Outraging Modesty of A Women

iv. Defining Intention In Context of Section 509 IPC

Analysis And Findings

i. The Material on Record

ii. Sufficiency of Material To Attract Criminality Under Section 509 of IPC

The Role of Courts While Dealing With Gender-Specific Laws:

Striking A Neutral Chord

i. The Necessity For Court To Remain Gender Neutral While

Adjudicating Even Gender Specific Offences

Conclusion

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 05.07.2018 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in Criminal case no. 51656/2017 titled "State vs. Varun Bhatia", arising out of FIR bearing no. 79/2015, registered at Police Station R.K. Puram, New Delhi under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The complainant in the present case had lodged a complaint with the police on 31.01.2015 wherein she had stated that she had been working with HDFC Life Insurance and that present accused was her superior officer. She had stated that for the work that she used to do in the course of her employment, she used to get incentives. It was alleged by the complainant that the accused always used to show his power and used to demand money from her, which she had given on some earlier occasions. It was alleged that on 31.01.2015, the accused had demanded money of Rs.1000/- from her and when she had refused to give him the money and had told him that she would give it to him on some other day, the accused had asked her to show her purse and upon complainant's refusal to do so, the accused had used `Gandi Bhaasha' (bad language) against her. As alleged, the accused had also used the words `Gandi Aurat' against the complainant and had started quarreling with her after which the complainant had made a phone call on 100 number. It was also stated by her that she had given Rs.4000/- in the past to save her job and the accused had been harassing her for 6 months. On these allegations, the present FIR had been registered.

3. Thereafter, the statement of complainant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate and after conducting investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused/petitioner.

4. After hearing arguments on point of notice/charge, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 05.07.2018, held that a prima facie case was made out against the accused/petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC.

ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BEFORE THIS COURT

5. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned Trial Court had committed an error by framing charges against the accused since the Court has failed to take note of the fact that the complainant has made improvements in her complaint and there discrepancies in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and initial complaint made to the police. It is stated that petitioner herein was the territory manager supervisor of HDFC Life Insurance, working in Delhi branch and had many sales executives working under him, and the complainant had also started working under him. It is argued that the complainant was an irregular and indisciplined employee and the petitioner had written several emails to her regarding her irregular attendance and below par performance, however, she had never even replied to the same. It is furth