{"id":372470,"date":"2026-01-13T13:00:54","date_gmt":"2026-01-13T07:30:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=372470"},"modified":"2026-01-14T17:52:45","modified_gmt":"2026-01-14T12:22:45","slug":"del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/","title":{"rendered":"Restraining entry in discharge of duty not Wrongful Restraint or Outraging Modesty; Delhi High Court quashes FIR against Security Guard"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In an application filed under Sections 482<\/a> and 483<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)<\/a> seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and orders framing charges against petitioners, two security guards, who were accused of wrongfully restraining and assaulting the modesty of the widow of a company director while preventing her from entering office premises, a Single-Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J.<\/span>, held that petitioners acted in good faith in discharge of their duty as security guards and consequently quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and orders framing charges under Sections 341<\/a>\/34<\/a> and 354<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In the instant matter, the petitioners were employed as security guards on 17-09-2015 and posted at the office premises of VLS Group of Companies, New Delhi. Their appointment followed the untimely and mysterious death of one of the Directors of VLS Group (the deceased), on 22-08-2015.<\/p>\n

After the demise of the deceased, disputes arose between the deceased’s widow (Respondent 2), and her in-laws concerning the control and ownership of the companies and assets left behind by the deceased. The Respondent 2 alleged that her father-in-law and brother-in-law were attempting to deprive her of her legitimate share and were exerting pressure upon her to relinquish her rights.<\/p>\n

On 18-09-2015, Respondent 2 visited the office premises of VLS Group. At the entrance, she was stopped by the petitioners who were posted there as security guards. According to her complaint, one of the guards was carrying a weapon and they informed her that they had instructions from her father-in-law and brother-in-law not to allow her entry into the office. When she tried to proceed inside, petitioner held her upper arm and restrained her.<\/p>\n

Respondent 2 first made a complaint on 19-09-2015 to the ACP primarily alleging threats and pressure by her in-laws, with a passing reference to the incident of 18-09-2015. As no action was taken, she filed a second complaint dated 22-09.2015 at Police Station, specifically alleging wrongful restraint and assault on her modesty by the petitioners.<\/p>\n

On the basis of the second complaint, FIR under Sections 341<\/a>\/506<\/a>\/34<\/a> IPC<\/a> was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The Metropolitan Magistrate framed charges under Section 341<\/a>\/34<\/a> IPC<\/a>. On revision, the Additional Sessions Judge directed framing of an additional charge under Section 354<\/a> IPC<\/a>. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and orders framing charges.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the undisputed factual matrix showed that the petitioners were employed as security guards on 17-09-2015 and were posted at the office premises following the mysterious death of the deceased. The incident occurred against the backdrop of an intense family dispute over property and control of the company.<\/p>\n

The Court reproduced Section 339<\/a> IPC<\/a> which defines Wrongful Restraint, and is punishable under Section 341<\/a> IPC<\/a> and held that the essential ingredients of wrongful restraint are:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    there is an obstruction;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    the obstruction prevents a person from proceeding in any direction, and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    the person so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Court noted that the complainant nowhere asserted that she had a legal right to enter the office premises. On the contrary, her own complaint showed that the guards had been posted by her father-in-law and brother-in-law and were discharging their duties.<\/p>\n

    The Court held that “the Petitioners being Security Guards, had the bounden duty to ensure that no unauthorised person enters the office premises. The Complainant had nowhere asserted or even prima facie stated that she had a right to enter into the Office premises.”<\/span><\/p>\n

    The Court held that the act of restraining her from entering an office where she had no established right of entry, and that too in good faith in discharge of official duty, squarely fell within the exception to Section 339<\/a> IPC<\/a>. Hence, no offence under Section 341<\/a> IPC<\/a> was made out.<\/p>\n

    The Court reiterated that for an offence under Section 354<\/a> IPC<\/a>, criminal force must be used with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman. From the complainant’s own version, the only act attributed to the petitioners was that one of them held her upper arm to restrain her from entering the office premises.<\/p>\n

    The Court asserted that there was no allegation of any sexual overtone, gesture or intention and the act was purely in the nature of restraining entry. The Court categorically held that “by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that this act was intended with a ‘sexual intent’ to outrage her modesty.”<\/span> Therefore, no offence under Section 354<\/a> IPC<\/a> was disclosed.<\/p>\n

    The Court noted that the first complaint dated 19-09-2015 was essentially directed against the in-laws and only made a passing reference to the incident. When no action was taken, the second complaint dated 22-09-2015 was filed, making the guards the main accused.<\/p>\n

    The Court observed that “it is evident that in this family fight, the Petitioners, who were the Security Guards who had been employed just a day before the incident, were targeted when the Complainant was unable to mobilize the Police against her in-laws.”<\/span> The Court held that the proceedings were nothing but an abuse of the process of law.<\/p>\n

    The Court allowed both petitions and quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and orders dated 18-04-2017 and 03-08-2018 framing charges under Sections 341<\/a>\/34<\/a> IPC<\/a> and 354<\/a> IPC<\/a>. The Court discharged the petitioners from all offences.<\/p>\n

    [Manoj Mishra<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 16<\/a>, Decided on 05-01-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    *Judgment by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

    Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

    Mr. Parmesh Bali, Mr. Gagan Garg, Mr. Shivam Srivastav, Mr. Keshav Maheshwari and Mr. Abhishek Nandan, Counsel for the Petitioner<\/p>\n

    Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State. Mr. Yashpal Singh, Mr. Abhinandan Gautam and Mr Himanshu Baliyan, Counsel for the Respondent 2<\/p>\n

    Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"Code<\/a><\/p>\n

    Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"penal<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The Petitioners being Security Guards, had the bounden duty to ensure that no unauthorised person enters the office premises… act of restraining the Complainant for entering the Office for which she had no right, cannot be termed as an act of wrongful restraint.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":372471,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[31236,96708,96707,6711,2543,52771,69162,50352,20681,32964,33209,39134],"class_list":["post-372470","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-abuse-of-process","tag-act-in-good-faith","tag-assault-criminal-force-to-woman-with-intent-to-outrage-her-modesty","tag-criminal-law","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-discharge-of-duty","tag-justice-neena-bansal-krishna","tag-quashment-of-fir","tag-section-341-ipc","tag-section-354-ipc","tag-security-guards","tag-wrongful-restraint"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC: Restraining Entry in discharge of duty Not Wrongful Restraint | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court quashed FIR and held that security guards not liable for wrongful restraint for Restraining Entry in discharge of duty\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Restraining entry in discharge of duty not Wrongful Restraint or Outraging Modesty; Delhi High Court quashes FIR against Security Guard\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court quashed FIR and held that security guards not liable for wrongful restraint for Restraining Entry in discharge of duty\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-01-13T07:30:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-01-14T12:22:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Restraining entry in discharge of duty not Wrongful Restraint or Outraging Modesty; Delhi High Court quashes FIR against Security Guard\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC: Restraining Entry in discharge of duty Not Wrongful Restraint | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-13T07:30:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-01-14T12:22:45+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court quashed FIR and held that security guards not liable for wrongful restraint for Restraining Entry in discharge of duty\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Restraining entry in discharge of duty\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Restraining entry in discharge of duty not Wrongful Restraint or Outraging Modesty; Delhi High Court quashes FIR against Security Guard\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC: Restraining Entry in discharge of duty Not Wrongful Restraint | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court quashed FIR and held that security guards not liable for wrongful restraint for Restraining Entry in discharge of duty","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Restraining entry in discharge of duty not Wrongful Restraint or Outraging Modesty; Delhi High Court quashes FIR against Security Guard","og_description":"Delhi High Court quashed FIR and held that security guards not liable for wrongful restraint for Restraining Entry in discharge of duty","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-01-13T07:30:54+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-01-14T12:22:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Restraining entry in discharge of duty not Wrongful Restraint or Outraging Modesty; Delhi High Court quashes FIR against Security Guard","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/","name":"Del HC: Restraining Entry in discharge of duty Not Wrongful Restraint | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty.webp","datePublished":"2026-01-13T07:30:54+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-14T12:22:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Delhi High Court quashed FIR and held that security guards not liable for wrongful restraint for Restraining Entry in discharge of duty","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Restraining entry in discharge of duty"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/del-hc-security-guards-restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty-no-wrongful-restraint\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Restraining entry in discharge of duty not Wrongful Restraint or Outraging Modesty; Delhi High Court quashes FIR against Security Guard"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Restraining-entry-in-discharge-of-duty.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":275370,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/mere-phrase-abused-me-in-a-very-filthy-language-does-not-suffice-required-to-prove-the-nature-of-abuses-to-make-a-case-under-s-509-ipc-delhi-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":372470,"position":0},"title":"Mere phrase \u2018abused me in a very filthy language\u2019 does not suffice; Required to prove the nature of abuses to make a case under S. 509 IPC: Delhi Court","author":"Editor","date":"October 11, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi: In a case wherein it is alleged that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 509 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as the accused started hurling abuses in a filthy language and started to quarrel with the complainant, Devanshu Sajlan, J., held\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tis Hazari Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-50-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-50-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-50-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-50-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-50-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6596,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/07\/19\/pushing-accidently-is-not-outraging-modesty-of-woman-under-section-354-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":372470,"position":1},"title":"Pushing accidently is not outraging modesty of woman under Section 354 IPC","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 19, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court:\u00a0 In the light of the increasing misuse of laws combating crime against women,\u00a0 while deciding the question\u00a0 that whether any assault or criminal force as under Section 354 IPC was used on the informant with the intent\u00a0 to outrage her modesty, the Court held that during an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "High Courts"","block_context":{"text":"High Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/highcourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":200581,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/24\/quashing-of-fir-registered-on-charges-of-sexual-harassment-merely-on-apology-would-set-a-bad-precedent-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":372470,"position":2},"title":"Quashing of FIR registered on charges of sexual harassment merely on apology would set a bad precedent: Delhi HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 24, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of R.K. Gauba, J. dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR registered under Sections 354-A, 354-D and 509 IPC. The first informant was a married woman. Her husband was running a bad health and she was constrained\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":208677,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/24\/del-hc-crude-settlements-send-wrong-signal-to-society-quashing-of-fir-registered-for-outraging-of-woman-rejected\/","url_meta":{"origin":372470,"position":3},"title":"Del HC | Crude settlements send wrong signal to society : Quashing of FIR registered for outraging modesty of woman rejected","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0The Bench of Sunil Gaur, J. dismissed a petition seeking quashing of FIR filed for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 506 and 34 IPC. Petitioner, who was represented by Siddhartha Nanwal, Advocate, sought quashing of FIR on the basis of settlement reached between the parties. It\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":277309,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/12\/womans-modesty-and-mans-nudity\/","url_meta":{"origin":372470,"position":4},"title":"Woman’s Modesty and Man’s Nudity","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Shashwati Diksha*","rel":"","context":"In "OP. ED."","block_context":{"text":"OP. ED.","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-240-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-240-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-240-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-240-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-240-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338605,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/08\/application-force-with-intent-to-outrage-modesty-of-woman-for-offence-under-s-354-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":372470,"position":5},"title":"\u2018Application of force must be with intent to outrage modesty of woman\u2019; SC quashes proceedings against man for offence under S. 354 and 506 IPC","author":"Editor","date":"January 8, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cFor mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before the Court.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Modesty of woman under S. 354 IPC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Modesty-of-woman-under-S.-354-IPC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Modesty-of-woman-under-S.-354-IPC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Modesty-of-woman-under-S.-354-IPC.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Modesty-of-woman-under-S.-354-IPC.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372470","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=372470"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372470\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/372471"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=372470"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=372470"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=372470"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}