Calcutta High Court: In a case related to outraging the modesty of a women initiated against the petitioner solely to harass and humiliate him due to his political affiliations, a single-judge bench comprising of Shampa Dutt (Paul),* J., held that “the ultimate test to ascertain if the modesty of a woman has been outraged, is that the action of the offender should be such that it may be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.”
The Court invoked its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and quashed the criminal proceedings as allowing the case to proceed against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the legal process.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner is a supporter of a particular political party and currently holds the position of Secretary of that party. The petitioner alleged that his reputation has been tarnished by the Police Administration in collusion with the ruling party of West Bengal ever since they joined a rival political faction.
On 08-06-2020, while the petitioner, along with two party workers and security personnel, was going to meet an individual, a mob blocked the road and confronted them. The mob allegedly attacked and damaged the petitioner’s car and manhandled their security personnel.
The petitioner filed a written complaint about these events, resulting in the registration of the case under various sections of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Subsequently, the petitioner learned that another case was registered based on a complaint by the opposite party 2, alleging that the petitioner and others provoked and attacked individuals distributing masks, thereby outraging their modesty.
The petitioner filed the current revision application seeking the quashing of proceedings in case filed against him under Sections 323/354/326/506/34 of the IPC. The case is pending before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas.
Moot Point
-
Whether the ongoing criminal proceedings under Sections 323/354/326/506/34 of the IPC against the petitioner should be quashed?
-
Whether the allegations against the petitioner are sufficient to constitute an offense?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that the proceedings were malicious and intended to harass and humiliate the petitioner. It was contended that the allegations were baseless and lacked merit. The petitioner emphasized that the allegations, when examined as a whole, did not establish any of the offenses charged against the petitioner and therefore, mere allegations without supporting evidence should not lead to continued legal proceedings.
While referring to the statements in the case diary, the State acknowledged that the allegations were primarily against individuals accompanying the petitioner, with no specific accusations against the petitioner himself.
Court’s Assessment
The Court referred to Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), (2006) 8 SCC 560, where the Supreme Court laid down the requirements to establish an offense under Section 354 of the IPC and highlighted the importance of intent to outrage a woman’ modesty in such cases. The Supreme Court held that “the ultimate test for ascertaining whether the modesty of a woman has been outraged, assaulted or insulted is that the action of the offender should be such that it may be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.”
The court observed that, in the present case, there was no action by the petitioner that could be perceived as capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. Thus, the petitioner could not be charged under Section 354 of the IPC.
The Court also referred to the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, in order to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court highlighted the categories of cases in which the court should quash proceedings, including cases where allegations are absurd or manifestly attended with mala fides and based its decision on them specifically considering guidelines 1, 5, and 7.
The Court held that there is no substantial evidence against the petitioner and the allegations were baseless, and permitting the case to proceed would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
“There was a free fight between two rival political groups and the injuries allegedly sustained are not significant nor has the history of the injuries been stated before the doctor. More so, there is absolutely no materials on record against the petitioner herein and permitting the present case to proceed will clearly be an abuse of the process of law.”
Court’s Decision
While allowing the petitioner’s revision application, the Court quashed the ongoing criminal proceedings against the petitioner, as the case lacks substantial evidence and would constitute an abuse of legal process. All connected applications are also disposed of.
[Sabyasachi Dutta v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3037, order dated 25-09-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Ms. Purnima Ghosh, Counsel for the State
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
