“Intention Or Knowledge To Outrage Modesty Of A Woman Must Be Clearly Discernible”: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Quashes FIR U/S. 354 IPC
|The Court said that in the absence of material showing intent or knowledge to outrage modesty, no offence under Section 354 IPC could be said to be made out.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed an FIR registered against two Petitioners under Sections 354 and 447 of the IPC, observing that there was no material indicating the requisite mental element necessary to constitute the offence of outraging modesty.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “To constitute an offence under Section 354 of IPC, the intention or knowledge to outrage the modesty of a woman is a necessary ingredient and the same has to be deciphered from the attending circumstances.”
The Court added, “There is nothing either in the statement of the complainant or in the material collected by the Investigating Agency during investigation of the case to remotely suggest that the petitioners intended to outrage modesty of the complainant. While drawing such inference, this Court is taking into account the fact that the complainant was a septuagenarian lady and the petitioners happen to be her nephews. Having regard to the age of the complainant and having regard to the fact that she was closely related to the petitioners, it is difficult to conceive that the petitioners intended to outrage modesty of the complainant.”
Advocate Prince Hamza appeared for the Petitioners, while Senior AAG Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadiri represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by an elderly woman, who alleged that on the date of the incident, the Petitioners, who are her nephews, entered upon a parcel of land where she was present, verbally abused her, and during the course of an altercation, one of them pushed her, causing her to fall. She alleged that in the process, her headscarf fell off, and this act amounted to outraging her modesty. The complaint also alleged that the Petitioners had committed criminal trespass by entering the said land without authority.
The Petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR. They submitted that the complainant was their paternal aunt and that the incident had been falsely projected as a criminal offence to exert pressure in a larger family dispute over property. It was stated that the land in question was subject to civil proceedings pending before competent courts, and that interim orders regarding status quo had been passed. The Petitioners contended that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to the civil dispute and was an attempt to criminalise a family conflict in the absence of any material disclosing commission of a cognizable offence.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court examined the scope of Section 354 IPC and held that intention or knowledge to outrage modesty is a mandatory element of the offence. It noted, “Intent to outrage or the knowledge that by the offending act the accused would outrage modesty of the victim woman is basic ingredient of offence under Section 354 of IPC. Mere assault or use of criminal force to a woman simplicitor, without there being any intention on the part of the accused to outrage the modesty of the victim, would not fall within the definition of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. An assault or use of criminal force to a woman simplicitor unaccompanied by a state of mind to outrage modesty of such woman cannot be termed as an offence under Section 354 of IPC.”
After reviewing the complainant’s statement and the case diary, the Court noted that the material did not suggest the presence of any such mental element, and reiterated that the allegations, viewed in context, did not disclose the ingredients of Section 354 IPC.
As to the charge of criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC, the Court found that there was no investigation or documentation to show that the complainant was in exclusive possession of the land. “A perusal of the Case Diary reveals that although the Investigating Agency has claimed that they have completed investigation of the case, yet it has not taken trouble to demarcate the land where the occurrence has taken place nor has it got the site plan relating to the place of occurrence prepared from the revenue agency. In the absence of any such material and in the absence of any revenue record to show that the site of occurrence was actually in possession of the complainant, the offence under Section 447 of IPC cannot be stated to have been constituted against the petitioners”, it added.
The Court also noted that the filing of the FIR appeared to be a strategic move by the complainant to pressurise the Petitioners during a property-related dispute.
The Court held that neither the allegations in the FIR nor the material collected during investigation disclosed the commission of any cognizable offence. It found that the complainant had attempted to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case to pressurise the Petitioners. Observing that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Court held that no case for offences under Sections 354 or 447 IPC was made out.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR along with all proceedings arising therefrom.
Cause Title: Raja Asif Farooq & Anr. v. UT of J&K & Ors. (CRM(M) No.267/2022)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Prince Hamza
Respondents: Senior AAG Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadiri; Government Advocate Faheem Nisar Shah