Application Of Force Must Be With Intent To Outrage Modesty Of Woman U/S 354 IPC: SC Quashes Case Against Accused
The Supreme Court quashed a case under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused, noting that an application of force must be with an intent to outrage the modesty of woman.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which the accused’s request to quash the chargesheet and proceedings under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC was turned down.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “A bear perusal of Section 354, IPC reveals that for it to apply, the offence must be committed against a woman; criminal force must be applied against her; and such application of force must be with the intent to outrage her modesty. … no direct allegation nor any evidence in support thereof can be found attributing intent to the appellant. It cannot be said, then, that a case u/s 354 IPC is made out against the appellant.”
The Bench noted that for mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before the Court.
Senior Advocate R. Basanth appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
In this case, the Appellant/accused and the Respondent/Complainant were directors in a company. In 2019, the accused vide a communication sought to end this partnership and thereafter, the Respondent filed a Complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) making allegations against the Appellant’s brother of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace as also alleged threat of murder. A preliminary enquiry report was submitted to the competent authority, however, the Respondent filed an Application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), alleging non-lodging of Complaint as also no investigation having taken place on the representation given to the SSP.
The CJM in pursuance of such an Application, directed registration of Complaint and investigation thereof. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the Appellant and his brother. Shortly thereafter, the accused persons filed a Complaint against the Respondent alleging Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, and Siphoning of Funds of the partnership concern. They also filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, seeking protection from arrest and the same was granted. On filing a Petition seeking quashing of chargesheet, cognizance Order, and stay on further proceedings, the Single Judge refused such prayer. Being aggrieved, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in the above regard, said, “It is well settled that when considering an application u/s 482 CrPC, the court cannot conduct a mini-trial but instead is to be satisfied that prima facie the offences as alleged are made out. To put it differently, it is to be seen, without undertaking a minute examination of the record, that there is some substance in the allegations made which could meet the threshold of statutory language.”
The Court further noted that, for an offence under Section 503 IPC to be established, it must be shown that –
(1) Threatening a person with any injury; (i) to his person, reputation or property; or (ii) to the person, or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested.
(2) Such threat must be intentional; (i) to cause alarm to that person; or (ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or (iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
“Punishment for this offence is prescribed u/s 506 IPC, which is two years or with a fine or both, as applicable to this case”, it added.
The Court also emphasised that for an offence of criminal intimidation to be prima facie established, the intention should be clearly visible, and the same is to be established by evidence on record.
“Granted that at this stage, evidence on record is not the standard to be applied since the trial is underway, but at least the results of the investigation and the material gathered thereunder, which is on record, should disclose somewhat of an offence. The FIR, interim investigation report and the chargesheet, reproduced above, do not disclose any offence having been committed by the appellant herein”, it said.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the sum total of the circumstances, submissions, and documents on record, do not point to the Appellant having committed any offence against the Complainant.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and quashed the proceedings against the accused.
Cause Title- Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 19)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate R. Basanth, AOR Pallavi Pratap, Advocates Chinmaya Khalidkar, and Abhinav Agnihotri.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, AORs Rajat Singh, Ronak Karanpuria, Advocates Vijender Singh, and Parteek Kumar.
