IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1931 OF 2003 Between : D.Manoj Singh .... Petitioner A N D 1. The State of A.P. re. P.P. 2. Kum Rakhi Bhargava …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1931 OF 2003 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, is directed against the Order, dated 17.11.2003, in Crl.M.P.No. 1391 of 2003 in S.C. No.195 of 2003, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2. Heard Sri K.Anoop Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing R-1 and Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing R-2. 3. On 06.02.2004, while admitting the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.9030 of 2003, interim stay of all further proceedings, in S.C. No. 195 of 2003, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, until further orders had been made. 4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the de facto complainant had falsely contended that she alleged to have approached the petitioner on 30.10.2002, as the Commanding Officer of the Camp sent her to the school to meet the Petitioner / accused and settle the dispute regarding payment of Rs.14,200/- towards NCC Fund. On contrary, the said statement of the de facto complainant is totally baseless as the petitioner has already paid the said amount on 28.10.2002, for which a receipt is also passed by the NCC Commanding Officer, and the court below has failed to consider the said document. 5. The learned counsel also pointed out to the material available on record and also further contended that even if the allegations are to be taken into consideration, the ingredients of Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short “I.P.C.”) are not attracted. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on a decision of this court in Pedda Geliche Divasekhar Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] 6. On contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, it may be that ultimately these grounds have to be considered at appropriate stage, but definitely not at this stage, for discharging the accused. 7. Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing R-2, would maintain that the factual controversies can not be gone into at this stage and even otherwise, at the time of framing the charges, the aspect, whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to warrant the conviction or not need not be gone into and may be that ultimately the learned Sessions Judge, may come to the conclusion that minor offences had been committed and these aspects need not be gone into at this stage, and hence the criminal revision case is to be dismissed. 8. Heard the counsel on record. 9. This criminal revision case is filed against the order, dated17.11.2003, made in Crl.M.P.No. 1391 of 2003 in S.C. No.195 of 2003 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Court at Nampally, Hyderabad. The petitioner is accused facing trial for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. Section 354 I.P.C. reads as hereunder. “Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty: - Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been working as principal of Vidya Model High School, and the de facto complainant, Kumari Rakhi Bhargava, also worked in the same school. The case of the prosecution is that there was NCC Camp for students from 23.10.2002 to 30.10.2002 and the de facto complainant was asked to accompany the students in the Camp as care taker. But against her wish and that unable to discharge the duties due to ill-health, the complainant submitted resignation for the job with a request to be relieved on 30.10.2002, and in the mean while on 30.10.2002 the Commanding Officer of the Camp sent the complainant to the school to meet the Principal/accused and settle the dispute regarding the payment of Rs.14,200/- towards NCC Fund; and that when the de facto complainant went to the principal / accused he abused her calling her a bloddy bitch and thereby outraged her modesty, hence the petitioner to be prosecuted and punished. 11. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally had relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Ramesh Chander [2] , 1979 Crl. L.J. 154 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the grounds are not sufficient to discharge the accused and accordingly, dismissed the petition. 12. The learned Judge also referred to a decision of this court in Pedda Geliche Divasekhar Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [3]. In decision referred to supra, the learned Judge at para Nos. 5 and 8 observed thus: “Section 354 of I.P.C. is intended to punish a special vice and an offence against public morality and decency. The essence of the offence is the intention on the part of the accused to outrage the modesty of a woman. Modesty is the quality of being modest which in respect of a woman means decent in manner and conduct, chaste, distancing from indecency. Decency means property of behaviour. Behavior which is inconsonance with good taste which includes avoidance of obscene language and gesture and avoidance of undue exposure of person. It cannotes respectability. Decorum means property of speech and manner and maintenance of dignity. Mere assault on a woman or causing hurt to a woman cannot constitute an offence under Section 354 of IPC. The acts attributed to the accused must be accompanied by an intention to outrage the modesty of a woman. The acts attributed to the accused must have some special significance or connotation in respect of the woman qua a woman. In this case, the allegation against the accused is that while the woman was intervening when the accused were beating her husband, they caused hurt to her also. In this case, the circumstances as set out in the complaint do not disclose that the accused had any intention to affront the dignity and decency of the alleged victim. On the other hand, a plain reading of the allegations in the complaint would go to show that the accused beat and caused hurt to the alleged victim merely because she intervened when they were beating her husband. The sequence of events as narrated in the first information report would show that the accused were motivated by anger at the husband of the victim and the victim herself for the wrong they perceived was done by them by trespassing into their land by carrying their bullock cart. There is not even a remote suggestion that the accused had an intention to offend the modesty of the woman or slight her feminine decency”. 13. In a decision of Supreme Court in The state of Punjab V. Major Singh,[4] it was held that any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within Section 354 of I.P.C. In another decision of Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [5], it was held that the element of test for ascertaining whether the modesty had been outrage is whether the action of the offender could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The intention or knowledge is one of the ingredients of any offence, may have to be proved like any further ingredient for convicting the person, but such an intention can be inferred from a particular given case as well. 14. Even on examination of the admitted facts, this court is satisfied that the ingredients under Section 354 I.P.C. as such are not attracted. 15. In the light of the same, the order made by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, be set aside and accordingly the Criminal Revision Case is hereby allowed. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J. February 24, 2010. YVL [1] 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 716 (AP) [2] 1997(1) ALD (Crl) 277 [3] 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 716 (AP) [4] AIR 1967 SC 63 [5] 1995 SCC (Crl) 1059