Case Description
Alla Baksha Patel v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Case type: Criminal Petition
Case No.: CRL.P No. 1995 of 2022
Date of Order: 4th June 2024
Bench: M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Facts
- The respondent in this case (complainant before the police), who is a married woman and worked at a Primary Health centre, had given her number to the officers at centre. When she suddenly started receiving calls at odd hours from various numbers, she found out that her number was written on the walls of gent’s toilet as being the number of a “call girl.”
- The respondent (complainant before the police) filed a complaint, mentioning that some staff known to her had done this act, and sought investigation into the matter. Upon completion of the police investigation, a complaint under Section 501, 504, 507, and 509 of the IPC was filed against this petitioner/accused.
- The Court had granted an interim stay on the grounds that offences under Section 504 and 506 were non-cognizable and required permission of the learned magistrate to register FIR. Although such permission was granted by the magistrate with the word “permitted” in the present case, no further proceeding took place against the petitioner.
- Thus, the petitioner approached the Court under Section 482 of the CrPC and sought quashing of the pending proceedings on the ground of abuse of law.
Issues
- Whether the accused’s petition for quashing of proceedings be allowed for trial pending under Sections 501, 504, 507, and 509 of the IPC, if there are errors in filing of complaint and in the permission granted by Magistrate?
- Whether offence under Section 509 is made out against a petitioner who had written the number of the complainant on walls of gent’s toilet on direction of someone else?
Laws Involved
- Section 501, 504, 507 and 509 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (“IPC”)
- Section 483 and 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (“CrPC”)
Petitioner/Accused’s Arguments
- The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the magistrate granting permission did not apply his mind and had simply written the word “permitted”. In the present matter, there was no independent evidence against the petitioner; his name only came up during investigation when CW-5 named him.
- The counsel argued that the petitioner was included as an accused in the proceedings only because CW-5 stated that she had asked him to write the complainant/respondent’s number on the wall.
- It was submitted that voluntary statement of another cannot be taken as evidence to pin down the petitioner.
Respondent/Complainant’s Arguments
- Respondent/Complainant’s counsel submitted that it was the duty of the Station House Officer or the Office-in charge of police station to lodge complaint under appropriate sections upon receiving facts of the matter. The Respondent was not aware of the sections of the law; she merely provided necessary material to the Police Superintendent.
- The allegation against the petitioner is an offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC and is a cognizable offence. Therefore, magistrate’s permission in this regard is not important.
- With reference to the application seeking vacation of interim order and appended documents, the respondent showcased how Section 509 is clearly attracted and sought dismissal of the current petition for quashing of proceedings.
State’s Arguments
- The counsel appearing for state contended that the charge sheet, along with complete collected documents, pin down the petitioner as guilty of the offence. Therefore, a trial becomes a must.
Court’s Analysis
- The Respondent/Complainant, when the issue first arose, lodged a complaint at Chitradurg police station where it was filed under Section 504 and 506 of IPC, after obtaining Magistrate’s permission.
- On noticing the place of occurrence to be Majestic Bus Stop, the complaint was transferred to Upparpet Police Station, where it was registered under same sections. Thus, no prior permission was necessary to be taken again.
- CW-5 and the respondent worked together at the Primary Health Centre. In her statement, she revealed that respondent had shared her number with her and after a fight she asked the petitioner to write down the respondent’s number at the men’s toilet and mention the respondent as a “call girl.”
- The above statement clearly shows that the petitioner was directed to do the act, and he complied with it. Since the respondent/complainant received innumerable calls where she was asked questions as a call girl, petitioner’s act led to a clear intrusion of her privacy and showcases insult to the modesty of a woman.
- The Court noted that although Magistrates are cautioned to not simply mention the word “permitted”, as such word indicates that they have not applied their mind and can cause harm to the aggrieved, but it would not vitiate a proceeding and let the accused roam free.
- Any fault caused during the registration of a complaint, where the officer has not filed the complaint under appropriate provisions, is folly on the part of the police and the victim cannot be asked to suffer.
- The Court relied on Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194], Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 4 SCC 371] and State of Punjab v. Major Singh [1966 SCC online SC 51] while discussing Section 509 and the concept of modesty of a woman. It observed that though modesty is not defined under the Code, it is understood as being the quality of being modest and in relation to a woman mean “womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct.”
Conclusion
- The Court rejected petitioner’s application for quashing of proceedings and asked petitioner to come out clean in a full-blown trial.
- Moreover, it opined that sexual violence against a woman is intrusion into her right to privacy apart from being a dehumanising act. It explained that intruding into a victim’s privacy and personal integrity causes a serious psychological harm and generates more pain than causing physical harm; it scars the soul.
- Therefore, 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.
- Lastly, it mentioned that the prosecution is open to invoke Section 319 of CrPC and include CW-5 into array of accused after following due process of law.