Karnataka High Court: While considering the instant petition challenging the criminal proceedings under Sections 501, 504, 507 and 509 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the petitioner for writing the complainant’s mobile number on the walls of a gents’ toilet at Majestic Bus Stand, the Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J.*, refused to quash the proceedings and sternly noted that the petitioner’s that it was only a writing on the wall and no offence can be made out, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. The Court further pointed out that the ingredients of Sections 501, 504, 507 and 509 of the IPC are clearly met in the instant case and the petitioner cannot get away with making belittling comments against a woman in public.
The Court opined that any scatological or salacious statements made against a woman either by gesture, writing or speaking, would undoubtedly amount to insulting the modesty of a woman. The Court also highlighted that in the current digital age, a woman’s modesty can be railroaded by sheer circulation of pejorative statements, pictures or videos in the social media. Therefore, when such cases are projected before the Court seeking quashment, it should not be interfered with but must be dealt with sternly.
Background: In 2020, the complainant was employed at a Primary Health Centre at Chitradurga district and due to the nature of her duty, she had given her mobile number to the officers at the Centre. However, she began to get frantic calls at odd hours asking questions that were inappropriate and hurling threats to her life. When she made enquiries about the inappropriate phone calls, it was informed that her mobile number was displayed on the walls of gent’s toilet at Majestic Bus Stand, Bengaluru.
Henceforth a complaint was filed alleging that some staff member known to the complainant had committed this deplorable act and sought an investigation to be conducted.
The police registered the crime and started its investigation which led to the filing of chargesheet against the petitioner and one other person for offences punishable under Sections 501, 504, 507 and 509 of the IPC. In 2022 granted an interim stay on the ground that the offences registered at the time of registration of crime were the ones punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, both of which were non-cognizable offences and for non-cognizable offences permission of the Magistrate to register the FIR was imperative and such permission was granted in the instant matter. All further proceedings in the case were interdicted. The said interim order is still in subsistence and no further trial has taken place against the petitioner so far.
Contentions: Counsel for the petitioner sought quashment of proceedings contending that the Magistrate should have applied mind prior to the grant of any permission to register an FIR. The petitioner further contended that there is no independent evidence against him and that a voluntary statement by another person cannot be taken as evidence to pin down the petitioner.
Per contra, the respondents argued that the complainant was not aware of what offences should be alleged when she registered the complaint. It was the duty of the Station House Officer or the Officer in-charge of the Police Station to have registered appropriate crime looking at the facts of the complaint as the complainant had produced all the necessary material to the Police Superintendent at Chitradurga District. It was further argued that since Section 509 of the IPC is a cognizable offence, therefore whether the Magistrate has granted appropriate permission or not would not become relevant in the instant case.
Court’s Assessment: Perusing the facts and contentions raised by the parties, the Court took note of the events that transpired in the case. It was noted that the jurisdictional police at Chitradurga registered the crime and on noticing that the complainant’s mobile number was written on the walls of the men’s toilet at Majestic Bus Station, Bengaluru, therefore the case was transferred to Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru, by a requisition from the jurisdictional police at Chitradurga. Since the crime had already been registered, no prior permission was necessary to be taken again from the hands of the Magistrate.
Taking note of the filed complaint, the Court noted that the complainant had narrated in detail that how she gave her mobile number to another woman working with her in the Primary Health Centre and how the other woman had revealed the complainant’s mobile number to the petitioner and with the task to write the mobile number on the walls of the men’s washroom at Majestic Bus Stand. The Court also noted that the other woman involved had recorded her statement and confessed her involvement in the matter, which in turn led the Police to the petitioner. The Court also took note that the other woman confessed that she directed the petitioner to commit the deplorable act due to a feeling of resentment towards the complainant.
Taking note of the penal provisions that were included in the chargesheet against the petitioner, the Court stated that the petitioner’s action clearly attracts the ingredients of Section 509 of the IPC as Section 509 makes it an offence to insult the modesty of any woman through utterance of any word or making of any sound or gesture or intrusion to the privacy of such woman. The Court pointed out that the facts of the instant case clearly fit into the ingredients of the allegations of the offences so alleged.
The Court pointed out that narration in the complaint was very clear that it touches upon the modesty of a woman. The victim cannot be put to jeopardy if the Officer at the Police Station or one who registers the complaint does not look into the contents of the complaint and registers an appropriate offence. “Justice to the victim is the soul of the procedure depicted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”.
Taking note of the order of the Magistrate, the Court stated that the learned Magistrate permits registration of the crime by the sole word “permitted”. The court emphasized that it had cautioned the Magistrates not to play with the life of the victims by non-application of mind.
The Court, however, pointed out that the crime has already been registered after investigation and the investigation has led to filing of charge sheet and drawing up of the names of the accused. “The petitioner was not an accused at the time of registration of crime. He springs in, only in the charge sheet. It would not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that the Magistrate has not applied his mind while granting permission. In any event that would not vitiate entire proceedings, given the peculiar facts of this case”.
The Court sternly observed that modesty of a woman cannot be treated so casually, as is done in the instant case. Relying on several Supreme Court precedents on S. 509 of IPC, the Court for the purposes of exercising its jurisdiction under S. 482, CrPC, refused to consider the petitioner’s argument that it was just a writing on the wall and that he cannot be implicated on the statement made by the other woman involved. The Court stated that the petitioner therefore must face the trial to come out clean.
[Alla Baksh Patel v. State of Karnataka, CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2022, decided on 04-06-2024]
*Order by Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For petitioner- TEJAS N., ADVOCATE
For respondents- B. N. JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R GOPALA KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
