regarding the judgement of s.court
PRAKASHCHANDRA MARU
(Querist) 21 May 2009
This query is : Resolved
hello sirs
i want the judgement/citation full details of rupan deol bajaj v/s k p s gill 1998 or in which magazine it was published thanks
A V Vishal
(Expert) 22 May 2009
Disposing of the matter, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty of a woman
has been outraged is, the action of the offender such as could be perceived
as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. [251-
A-B]
State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR (1967) SC 63, relied on.
1.2. In the instant case, the alleged act of the respondent in slapping the
appellant on her posterior amounted to 'outraging of her modesty' for it
was not only an affront to the normal sense of feminine decency but also an
affront to the dignity of the lady - 'sexual overtone' or not,
notwithstanding. The sequence of events narrated by the appellant indicated
that the slapping was the final to the earlier overtures of respondent,
which considered together, indicated that he had the requisite culpable
intention. Even if he had no such intention he must be attributed with such
knowledge, as the alleged act was committed by him in the presence of a
gathering comprising the elite of the society. There was nothing in the FIR
to indicate that the indecent act was committed by him, accidentally or by
mistake or it was a slip. Apart from the offence u/s 354 IPC, an offence
u/s 509 IPC had also been made out on the allegations contained in the FIR
as the words used and gestures made by respondent were intended to insult
the modesty of the appellant. [252-C-F]
2. So far as the offence u/s 341 IPC was concerned, the only allegation
relating to the same was that the respondent stood in front of the
appellant in such a manner that she had to move backward. From such act
alone it could not be said that he 'wrongfully restrained' her within the
meaning of Section 339 IPC to make him liable u/s 341 IPC. [252-H, 253-A]
3. Section 95 IPC is intended to prevent penalisation of negligible wrongs
or of offences of trivial character. The expression 'harm' appearing in the
Section is wide enough to include physical injury as also injurious mental
reaction. Section 95 IPC had no manner of application to the allegations
made in the FIR. On perusal of the FIR, it was found that the respondent,
the top most official of the State Police, indecently behaved with a Senior
Lady IAS Officer, in the presence of a gentry and in spite of her raising
objections continued with his such behaviour. Section 95 cannot have any
manner of application to an offence relating to modesty of woman as under
no circumstances can it be trivial. [253-H, 254-A-C]
Veeda Menezcs v. Yusuf Khan, AIR (1966) SC 1773, relied on.
4. At the stage of quashing an FIR or complaint the High Court is not
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability
or genuineness of the allegations made therein. An FIR or a complaint may
be quashed if the allegations made therein are so absurd and inherently
improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. On the
allegations in the FIR it was not possible to do so. Therefore the High
Court committed a gross error of law in quashing the FIR and the complaint.
[254-F-G]
State of Haryana v. Bhajun Lai, [1992] Supp. 1 SCC 335, relied on.
5. Since at the time of taking cognizance the Court has to exercise its
judicial discretion it necessarily follows that if in a given case - as the
present one - the complainant, as the person aggrieved raises objections to
the acceptance of a police report which recommends discharge of the accused
and seeks to satisfy the Court that a case for taking cognizance was made
out, but the Court overrules such objection, it is just and desirable that
the reasons therefore be recorded. Reasons introduce clarity and minimise
chances of arbitrariness. That necessarily means that recording of reasons
will not be necessary when the Court accepts such police report without any
demur from the complainant. [257-H, 258-A-B]
As the
