Click the Play button to listen to article

The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR lodged against a lawyer for outraging the modesty of the complainant who was his client, noting that the ingredients of the offence were missing and that the complainant had categorically stated that the lawyer never assaulted her and did not commit any act outraging her modesty. 

The case stemmed from a complaint lodged on June 30, 2021, by the respondent against the petitioner, an advocate. Claiming the case to be false, the petitioner approached the High Court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him.

The prosecution submitted that the petitioner was engaged by the complainant to handle her divorce petition before the Family Court in Bengaluru. Subsequently, the parties developed intimacy, and during the COVID-19 lockdown, the complainant visited the petitioner's native village claiming to be his wife. This led to a quarrel where the petitioner allegedly abused, assaulted, and threatened her.

Justice Venkatesh Naik T on finding that no essential ingredients were met for either of the offences, said, “Therefore, it is clear that in order to constitute offence of Section 324 of IPC, there must be a voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means whereas there is no wound certificate in support of her coercion. Further, the ingredient of Section 354 of IPC was also not made out.”

The Court also held that the FIR lodged by the respondent lacked any probable cause.

"Further, the defacto complainant was who claims to accused No.1, who is none other than practicing Advocate in Bengaluru. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed.More importantly, the perusal of the further statement of victim, she has categorically stated that the petitioner never assaulted her and he did not commit any act outraging her modesty," the court said. 

The court examined Section 324 of IPC— penalising an act of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means— and noted that the complainant's case lacked specific allegations as well as medical evidence to show the commission of such an offence.

“The perusal of Section 324 of IPC contemplates that if anybody causes hurt by dangerous weapons or means, then it amounts to Section 324 whereas in the instant case, there is no allegation that the accused assaulted with dangerous weapons or means. Further, the perusal of the wound certificate, it also appears that there are no injuries on the person of the victim. Hence, there is no medical evidence available in support of the case of the petitioner,” the Court said.

With respect to Section 354 IPC(assaulting or using criminal force to a woman with an intent to outrage her modesty) it said that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex, and the culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, though the absence of such reaction is not by itself, conclusive the court added.

The Court placed reliance on the Apex Court ruling in Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2004).

In the 2004 ruling, it was held, “to attract section 354 of IPC, the ingredient of outraging modesty of women with sexual intent has to be established, whereas, in the instant case, there is no allegation of the defacto complainant against the petitioner as to outraging modesty of woman with intent to have a sexual assault.”

The FIR was quashed. 

Tags: