Security Guards Restraining People In Discharge Of Duty Can't Be Prosecuted For Wrongful Restraint Or Outraging Modesty: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against security guards accused of wrongful restraint and outraging the modesty of a woman, holding that acts done bonafidely in the course of discharging duties can't be criminalised.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was hearing a petition seeking quashing of charges framed under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint) and 354 (outraging modesty) of the IPC against two security guards employed at a property where a family dispute over possession was pending.

The allegations arose from an incident in which the complainant woman alleged that the guards restrained her entry into the premises and, in the process, held her arm.

Allowing the quashing petition, the High Court held that restraining entry to premises pursuant to instructions of the employer and in furtherance of official duty does not amount to wrongful restraint, particularly when the complainant had no established legal right to enter the property at the relevant time.

“The existence of a deliberate obstruction coupled with the infringement of a legally protected right of movement, is sine qua non for the offence…when caused by a person acting in good faith under the belief that he has a lawful right to do so, such act does not amount to wrongful restraint,” the Court clarified.

In the facts of the case, it added, “The Petitioners being Security Guards, had the bounden duty to ensure that no unauthorised person enters the office premises. The Complainant had nowhere asserted or even prima facie stated that she had a right to enter into the Office premises.”

On the charge under Section 354 IPC, the Court noted that mere physical contact, without sexual intent or overt acts suggestive of outrage to modesty, cannot attract the offence.

“The pertinent aspect is that as per the Complainant herself, she was caught by the Petitioners from her arm, in an endeavour to restrain her from entering the Office premises. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that this act was intended with a “sexual intent” to outrage her modesty,” the Court said and quashed the charges.

Appearance: Parmesh Bali, Mr. Gagan Garg, Mr. Shivam Srivastav, Mr. Keshav Maheshwari and Mr. Abhishek Nandan, Advs. for Petitioners; Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State. Mr. Yashpal Singh, Mr. Abhinandan Gautam and Mr Himanshu Baliyan, Advocates for R-2.

Case title: Manoj Mishra v. State (and connected matter)

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 6474/2018

Click here to read order