IPC | State Of Mind To Outrage Modesty Of Woman Essential To Attract S.354, Criminal Force Alone Not Enough: J&K High Court

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, while quashing an FIR registered under Sections 354 and 447 of the IPC has held that an assault or use of criminal force to a woman simplicitor unaccompanied by a state of mind to outrage modesty of such woman cannot be termed as an offence under Section 354 of IPC.A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar accentuated, “.. Intent to outrage or the knowledge that by the offending act the accused would outrage modesty of the victim women is basic ingredient of offence under Section 354 of IPC…. An assault or use of criminal force to a woman simplicitor unaccompanied by a state of mind to outrage modesty of such woman cannot be termed as an offence under Section 354 of IPC”The ruling was delivered in a plea wherein the petitioners had challenged an FIR registered at Police Station in Srinagar. The impugned FIR was lodged by a septuagenarian woman alleging that while she was working in her agricultural land, the petitioners, her nephews arrived, obstructed her, hurled abuses, and one of them, pushed her, causing her to fall and dislodge her headgear. The act, according to the complainant, amounted to outraging her modesty.The petitioners contended that the FIR was a retaliatory action meant to criminalize a longstanding civil property dispute. They submitted that they and the complainant were co-owners of the land in question, and after multiple rounds of civil and revenue litigation including orders from the Financial Commissioner and Civil Courts the parties were directed to maintain status quo. It was asserted that despite these directions, the complainant tried to raise illegal construction on the land and subsequently executed a sale deed, which was challenged by the petitioners.In this backdrop, they alleged the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to pressurize them in the civil proceedings.Observations Of The Court:Justice Dhar undertook a thorough analysis of the legal definitions under the Indian Penal Code, particularly Sections 354 (outraging modesty), 447 (criminal trespass), 349 (force), 350 (criminal force), and 351 (assault). Citing precedents including Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194] and Attorney General v. Satish [(2022) 5 SCC 545], the Court reiterated the legal contours of “modesty” and emphasized the need for an intent or knowledge to outrage a woman's modesty as an essential ingredient of Section 354 IPC.“The act of pushing the complainant during an altercation which allegedly led to her falling and her headgear dislodging,” the Court observed, “does not per se amount to outraging modesty in the absence of intent or knowledge.”The Court underscored that the intent to outrage or the knowledge that by the offending act the accused would outrage modesty of the victim woman is a basic ingredient of offence under Section 354 of IPC. Mere assault or use of criminal force to a woman simplicitor, without there being any intention, would not suffice.Furthermore, the Court considered the relationship between the parties and the age of the complainant, holding, “It is difficult to conceive that the petitioners intended to outrage the modesty of their septuagenarian aunt. Nothing in the complaint or investigation remotely suggests such intent.”On the charge under Section 447 IPC, the Court found that no conclusive demarcation of the land had been done, and multiple civil and revenue court orders demonstrated an ongoing dispute regarding possession and ownership.“Unless it is shown that the property, upon which trespass is committed, is in possession of the victim and not the offender, criminal trespass cannot be established. The investigating agency did not demarcate the land or produce any site plan”, Justice Dhar pointed. The Court also expressed serious concern over the tendency to give a criminal flavour to civil disputes and observed that there is a growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in natureJustice Dhar remarked, “It appears that the complainant, with a view to settle a civil dispute, has resorted to lodging of the impugned FIR against the petitioners. The same is nothing but an abuse of process of court, which needs to be curbed.”Finding no prima facie case under either of the charged provisions, and holding that the allegations did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence, the Court quashed FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.“Continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in these circumstances, would amount to abuse of process of law”, the court concluded. Case Title: Raja Asif Farooq Vs UT Of J&K Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 232Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

IPC | State Of Mind To Outrage Modesty Of Woman Essential To Attract S.354, Criminal Force Alone Not Enough: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags