No Sexual Overtone: Gauhati High Court Quashes S.354 IPC Charge Against MLA Jignesh Mevani Accused Of Outraging Woman Cop's Modesty

The Gauhati High Court has discharged Gujarat MLA Jignesh Mevani from the charge of outraging the modesty of a woman police officer, holding that the materials collected during investigation did not reveal any act carrying a sexual overtone capable of attracting Section 354 IPC.

The court however retained the charged against Mevani under IPC Section 352 (Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation). The case arose from allegations by the woman officer that Mevani used slang words at her and pushed her while being escorted from Guwahati to Kokrajhar in a police vehicle following his arrest in another matter in 2022. 

Justice Arun Dev Choudhury in his order noted:

“From the materials and surrounding circumstances, as well as the statements recorded under Sections 164 CrPC and 161 CrPC, it is clear that the incident took place inside a moving vehicle. The three people, including the victim and the accused, were sitting together in the back seat of the vehicle wherein the accused was sitting in the middle… In the running vehicle, the victim felt that the accused pushed her body. In the considered opinion of this Court, mere feeling of being pushed in the course of travelling, without any act, gesture or circumstances indicating any intention with any sexual tone, does not fulfill the statutory requirement… the act itself must carry a sexual overtone or be of such a character that modesty is likely to be affected, which is absent in the present case…”

“...in the case in hand, there is nothing in the statement of the Victim, even remotely indicating any feelings of her modesty being outraged by the accused inasmuch as, such a state of mind is required to be expressed by the victim at least minimally, based on which the prosecution can proceed.,” the Court added.

The trial court had framed charges under Sections 352 and 354 IPC. According to the FIR, Mevani used slang words, pointed his finger at the officer, and had pushed her with force and had allegedly outraged her modesty by touching her “inappropriately while pushing.”

The High Court observed that this allegation of “inappropriate” touching appeared only in the FIR. It noted that in her Section 161 CrPC statement, the officer repeated that he pushed her and used slang words. However, in her detailed Section 164 CrPC statement, she said she “felt that Jignesh Mevani was pushing my body,” that he scolded her, and that she shifted her seat to avoid an uproar, without any allegation of inappropriate touching.

The Court noted, “the allegation of inappropriate touching while forcefully being pushed is conspicuously absent in her subsequent and more detailed statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC in which, it was explained that the altercation started when she felt that the accused was pushing her and she asked the accused to sit properly”

It further recorded that the contemporaneous versions of the other police personnel as well as the victim did not disclose any overt act that indicated sexual intent.

While evaluating whether the charge under Section 354 IPC could stand, the Court stated, “While exercising such power, the Court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to finding out whether the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.”

“While exercising such power, the Court cannot act merely as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution… Where grave suspicion exists against the accused, a Court shall be justified in framing a charge. When two views are equally possible and the material produced by the prosecution gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion… the Court shall be within its jurisdiction to discharge the accused,” the Court further emphasised

Further, the Court held that the allegations suggested only pushing and verbal aggression arising out of an altercation in a confined space inside a moving vehicle, and not any act capable of suggesting sexual intent.

The Court observed that the record, “taken as a whole, do not disclose existence of legally sustainable suspicion” required to proceed under Section 354 IPC.

The Court concluded that “when the allegation fails to satisfy even at the minimal threshold, particularly when the essential ingredients required under Section 354 IPC are conspicuously absent, this Court is required to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of process and to secure the end of justice.”

The Court therefore held that continuation of proceedings under Section 354 IPC would amount to "miscarriage of justice", ruling that even if the prosecution's version was accepted at face value, the ingredients of the offence were not disclosed.

With respect to Section 352 IPC, the Court referred to definition of "Criminal Force” as defined under Section 350 IPC which requires an act done with the intent to commit an offence, or with the intent or knowledge of causing injury, fear or annoyance.

It thus said:

"In the case in hand, applying the aforesaid definition, 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, in the opinion of this Court, 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 subject to proof by the prosecution during trial, though, may not come within the ambit of Section 354 IPC". 

Accordingly, the criminal petition was partly allowed by discharging Mevani from Section 354 IPC, while maintaining the charge under Section 352 IPC.

Case Number: Crl. Pet. No. 1132/2023

Case Title: Jignesh Mevani @ Jignesh N. Mevani vs. State of Assam & Anr.

Click here to read the judgment