The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR against a man accused of outraging a woman's modesty after observing that FIR was premised on a "staged confrontation" wherein the husband had found the accused with his wife after an "unexpected encounter" which lacked judicial creditworthiness.[2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 282]

The court thus said that pushing the accused through the "rigmarole of a full trial would be abuse of process of law".

The court was hearing a man's plea for quashing an FIR for offence under Section 354 IPC.

As per the FIR when the complainant was alone at her home, the petitioner allegedly entered her house and expressed unwanted romantic advances. He allegedly threatened her and grabbed her feet.

The complainant alleged a history of prior stalking and harassment spanning about three months, during which the accused allegedly teased her and displayed obscene clips on his mobile phone whenever she stepped outside.

The court said that the FIR sets up a pre-planned narrative, wherein the complainant alleged that she informed her husband prior to the incident that the petitioner had stated he would visit her at home in the afternoon. Therefore, her husband had instructed her to stay home so that they could catch the petitioner red-handed.

When the husband returned to the house and the petitioner allegedly tried to flee, the latter dropped his mobile phone at the doorstep, which was subsequently seized.

Justice PM Raval observed that while the complainant alleged continuous harassment, stalking, and exhibition of obscene clips by the petitioner for over three months, however she did not inform her husband out of fear of ruining her modesty, reputation, and societal defamation.

"This explanation runs completely counter to the subsequent twist in the prosecution's story. If a victim is genuinely living under the terror of an aggressive stalker for months to protect her reputation, it defies natural human conduct that she would suddenly choose to withhold police intervention and instead orchestrate a private "trap" at her home with the help of his husband.

According to the FIR, the complainant claims she told her husband beforehand that the accused was scheduled to visit her home in the afternoon, and her husband deliberately instructed her to remain at home so they could catch him red-handed. A woman who is allegedly terrified of social stigma and severe harassment would naturally seek immediate protection from her family, society, or law enforcement upon alleged harassment. The deliberate choice to act as a bait, invite the offender into the house, and stage a secret operation with her husband is utterly unnatural, unconvincing, and inconsistent with the behaviour of a genuine victim of harassment".

The court thus said that the "story of setting a pre-arranged trap" to catch the petitioner red-handed is an "afterthought".

The court said that the story strongly corroborates the defence's case that the husband unexpectedly caught the petitioner and the complainant together, and to cover up the "domestic fallout, embarrassment, or suspicion arising" therefrom an embellished version of a forced entry and outraging of modesty under Section 354 IPC has been concocted.

The court thus quashed the FIR stating that it was unnatural, lacked inherent probability, was an afterthought designed to give a criminal colour to an entirely different domestic situation.