Mere Feeling of Being Pushed Without Sexual Overtone Not an Offence U/S 354 IPC: Gauhati High Court - 2025-12-02

Gauhati High Court Quashes 'Outraging Modesty' Charge Against MLA Jignesh Mevani, Upholds Assault Charge

Guwahati: In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court has quashed the charge of 'outraging the modesty of a woman' under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Gujarat MLA Jignesh Mevani. The Court, however, upheld the framing of a charge for 'assault or use of criminal force' under Section 352 IPC, allowing the trial to proceed on this lesser offence.

The judgment emphasizes that for an act to constitute an offence under Section 354 IPC, it must carry a sexual overtone or be of a character likely to affect a woman's modesty, and a mere feeling of being pushed in a vehicle without such intent is insufficient to create a "grave suspicion."

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR filed on April 21, 2022, by a female police officer. She alleged that while escorting Mr. Mevani in a police vehicle from Guwahati to Kokrajhar in connection with another case, he used abusive language, pointed a finger at her, and pushed her onto her seat with force, touching her inappropriately in the process.

Based on this, the Barpeta Road Police registered a case, and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, framed charges against Mr. Mevani under Sections 354 and 352 of the IPC, while discharging him from other sections. Mr. Mevani challenged this order in the Gauhati High Court, seeking the quashing of the framed charges.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, argued that the allegations were trivial and lacked the essential ingredient of "intent to outrage modesty" required for a Section 354 charge. He contended that the alleged act, in the context it occurred, could not be perceived as having a sexual tone or being capable of shocking a woman's sense of decency.

The State's Public Prosecutor, Mr. K. Gogoi, countered that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only required to see if there is a "strong suspicion" against the accused. He argued that the victim's statements were sufficient to establish a prima facie case and that the question of intent was a matter of trial.

Court's Scrutiny and Judicial Reasoning

The High Court conducted a meticulous examination of the victim's statements recorded at different stages—the FIR, her statement under Section 161 CrPC, and her statement before a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC.

The Court noted a crucial inconsistency:

> "In the FIR, it is alleged that... the accused... assaulted me during the execution of my legal duty... and outraged my modesty by touching me inappropriately while pushing. ... In her further statement recorded under Section 161CrPC, she reiterated that the accused... pushed her to sit with force but there is no allegation of inappropriate touch. In her statement recorded under Section 164CrPC... there is no allegation of pushing her with force to sit or any allegation of inappropriate touch."

The Court observed that the allegation of "inappropriate touching" was conspicuously absent in the victim's subsequent, more detailed statements. The consistent narrative across all versions was a verbal altercation and a push inside a moving vehicle where three people, including Mr. Mevani in the middle, were seated in the back.

The judgment highlighted the absence of any sexual element, stating:

> "The materials on record, taken as a whole, do not disclose existence of legally sustainable suspicion... None of the witnesses who were present in the vehicle spoke any act of suggestive sexual intent nor does the victim in her statements... attribute any sexual element to the act of forceful push to sit."

The Court concluded that the materials fell short of the threshold required to frame a charge under Section 354 IPC. It held that a "bald statement" about feeling pushed in a crowded, moving vehicle, without any accompanying act or gesture indicating sexual intent, cannot create a "grave suspicion" of an attempt to outrage modesty.

Distinction Between Section 354 and 352 IPC

While quashing the more serious charge, the Court found sufficient material to proceed with the trial under Section 352 IPC (Assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation).

The Court reasoned that "criminal force," defined under Section 350 IPC, involves an act done with the intent to cause injury, fear, or annoyance. It held:

> "...the allegation of the victim that the act of the accused forcefully pushing her to sit, supported by the similar statements of the other witnesses present in the vehicle, accompanied by the allegation of use of abusive language... is sufficient to prima facie infer an intention to cause annoyance and also the use of criminal force for the purpose of Section 352 IPC..."

Final Verdict

The High Court partly allowed Mr. Mevani's petition. It discharged him from the offence under Section 354 IPC, concluding that its continuation would be an abuse of the process of law. However, the Court did not interfere with the trial court's decision to frame a charge under Section 352 IPC, and the proceedings for this offence will continue.