U.P.Srinivas vs State Of Telangana And Another

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.1208 of 2017 pending on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is A.2 in the

said Calendar Case. The offence alleged against the petitioner herein is under Section 354 of the IPC.

Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel, representing Sri L.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for 1st

respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in compliance of the order dated 05.03.2020, a notice was taken out to 2nd

respondent and the postal department has returned the said cover with an endorsement “insufficient addressâ€. Learned counsel for the petitioner

referring to Section 27 of The General Clauses Act, 1897, would submit that the notice sent to 2nd respondent to the address mentioned in the

complaint as well as in the charge sheet was returned. Therefore, it is deemed service. Perused the record.

The allegations against the petitioner herein/A.2 are that on the intervening night of 23/24.01.2003 at about 15hours, the 2nd respondent/defacto-

complainant along with her husband and Shane Shamson came to Markaz Manzil, Hill Top Colony to greet one Kelvin’s wife by name Charyl, on

the occasion her birthday, who was residing in flat No.102. After meeting them, when they were leaving at about 00.50hours and when they started

their bike, the petitioner herein/A.2 and A.1 misbehaved with the defacto-complainant for which husband of 2nd respondent and Shane Shamson along

with relative of 2nd respondent who were present there, beat A.1 and A.2 and caused injuries to them on nose, eye, face and head and flew away

from the spot. On the complaint lodged by A.1, the Police have also registered a case in Cr.No.121 of 2003 for the offence under Section 324 of the

IPC.

After completion of investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet in both the crimes vide Cr.No.121 of 2003 and Cr.No.123 of 2003 (the present

crime) and the same were taken on file vide C.C.Nos.720 of 2004 and C.C.No.1208 of 2017 respectively.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.123 of 2003 examined 2nd respondent/complainant as L.W.1, George Mikin as

L.W.2, Elvis Wall as L.W.3 and Charyl as L.W.4.

Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner herein, referring to the contents of the complaint, would submit that the contents of the charge sheet

lacks the ingredients of the offence alleged under Section 354 of IPC against the petitioner herein. There is no allegation about using of criminal force

either by the petitioner herein or by the A.1. Investigating Officer has not examined any independent witness to prove the said use of assault or

criminal force to the defacto-complainant with an intention to outrage her modesty. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings

against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.1208 of 2017.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would fairly submit that A.1 herein who is defacto-complainant in C.C.No.720 of

2014 and the accused therein have settled the matter before Lok Adalath and Lok Adalath has passed an Award in terms of compromise and

accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.720 of 2004 were closed. According to him, the petitioner herein along with A.1 misbehaved with the 2nd

respondent and therefore, they have committed the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. It is a triable issue which can be decided during the course

of trial and that the petitioner has to face trial to prove his innocence. With the said submissions, the learned Public prosecutor sought to dismiss the

Criminal Petition.

In view of the above submissions and the above stated facts, it is relevant to note that there is a case and counter case. In Cr.No.121 of 2003, the

Investigating Officer has examined the A.1 in the present case vide C.C.No.1208 of 2017 as L.W.1, the petitioner herein/A.2 as L.W.2, George Mikin

as L.W.3 and Elvis Wall as L.W.4, Charyl as L.W.5 and 2nd respondent herein as L.W.6.

A perusal of record would also reveal that A.1 herein and the defacto-complainant in C.C.No.720 of 2004 have compromised the matter and the

same was settled in Lok Adalath. Accordingly, Lok Adalath has passed an Award.

As stated above, the Investigating Officer has recorded statement of 2nd respondent herein as L.W.1 in Cr.No.123 of 2013 (C.C.No.1208 of

2017), George Mikin as L.W.2, Elvis Wall as L.W.3, Charyl as L.W.4; and in Cr.No.121 of 2003 relating to C.C.No.720 of 2003 George Mikin as

L.W.3, Elvis Wall as L.W.4, Charyl as L.W.5, 2nd respondent herein as L.W.6. The said case vide C.C.No.720 of 2004 was compromised between

the parties. The witnesses in both the cases are common and the incident was also common.

A perusal of the record would reveal that as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein/A.2, the Investigating Officer has not

examined any independent witness to prove the offence alleged against the petitioner herein. In the charge sheet, there is no mention about any assault

or criminal force to 2nd respondent with an intent to outrage her modesty by the petitioner herein. The only word used is that the petitioner herein/A.2

and A.1 have misbehaved with the 2nd respondent for which her husband and others have assaulted the petitioner herein/A.2 and A.1 and they have

received injuries on nose, eye, face and head etc., In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, mere knowledge that the modesty

of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of having such ‘outrage’ alone for its object. There is no

abstract conception of modesty that can apply to all cases. A careful approach has to be adopted by the Court while dealing with a case alleging

outrage of modesty. Whereas, in the present case, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner herein that he has used assault or criminal force

to 2nd respondent with an intent to outrage her modesty. At the cost of repetition as discussed supra, the only allegation against the petitioner herein is

that he along with A.1 misbehaved with the 2nd respondent. Thus, according to this Court the contents of the charge sheet lacks ingredients of the

offence under Section 354 of the IPC against the petitioner herein/A.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner

herein/A.2 in C.C.No.1208 of 2017.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1208 of 2017 pending on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner herein/A.2 are quashed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.