HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No. 761 of 2004 O R D E R: The revision petitioner is the de facto complainant. The 2nd respondent is the accused. The revision petitioner laid a complaint against the accused alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 354 IPC and 509 IPC. However, the police took up investigation and after completion of the investigation laid charge sheet for the offence punishable u/Sec. 509 IPC only considering that the offence punishable u/Sec. 354 IPC was not made out. 2. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandalur, took the case on file and numbered it as CC No. 3 of 2004. The de facto complainant is a 13 year old girl. Before the lower court, a representation was made before the court on behalf of the de facto complainant that primafacie a case u/Sec. 354 IPC was also made out and that the case was liable to be taken on file for the offence U/Sec. 354 IPC as well as under section 509 IPC. Through the impugned order, the learned Magistrate held that the offence punishable u/Sec. 354 IPC was not made out and took the case on file for the offence punishable u/Sec. 509 IPC only. 3. The point for consideration is whether the offence punishable u/Sec. 354 IPC is primafacie is made out to take the case on file for the offence punishable u/Sec. 354 IPC apart from the offence punishable U/Sec. 509 IPC. 4. Sri M.Balaji, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the allegations clearly establish the offence punishable u/Sec. 354 IPC and that the learned Magistrate was not correct in refusing to take the case on file for the offence punishable u/Sec. 354 IPC. 5. The case of the prosecution in brief is : The accused used to board the bus already boarded by the de facto complainant and used to sit in the seat behind the seat where the de facto complainant was seated and used to press her legs intentionally and that the accused used to change the bus and was getting down from the bus used to join the de facto complainant in the event the de facto complainant was getting down from the bus and was catching another bus, perhaps with a view to avoid the accused. It is also the case of the prosecution that about a week prior to 6.11.2003, the accused wrote on the wall (which wall ?) that he was in love with the de facto complainant. He went around the house of the de facto complainant on his cycle making gestures at the de facto complainant. Finally, on 6.11.2003, the accused left a letter on the cot of the de facto complainant that he was in love with her. These are the allegations which the learned counsel for the de facto complainant considered to be the acts of the accused outraging the modesty of the de facto complainant. The allegations in gist are pressing the legs of the de facto complainant intentionally, changing the bus along with the de facto complainant, writing on the wall as also placing a love letter on the cot of the de facto complainant. If the accused has been in love with the de facto complainant, would it constitute an offence punishable u/Sec. 354 IPC is the question for consideration. 6. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant pointed out that u/sec.350 IPC if force is used against any person with a view to commit an offence or knowing that it might cause injury, fear or annoyance to such a person, it would be tantamount to use of criminal force. By referring to Sec.354 IPC, he submitted that if such criminal force as defined u/Sec.350 IPC was used against any women, intending to outrage her modesty, it would constitute the offence punishable u/Sec.354 IPC. His claim is that the offence punishable u/Sec.354 IPC is primafacie made out, in view of the above mentioned facts. 7. The leaned Magistrate pointed out that there was no allegation that the accused touched the private parts of the de facto complainant and that there was no instance of criminal force on the complainant. Inter alia, the learned Magistrate held that the acts of the accused might amount to insult the modesty of the de facto complainant and that the same would not constitute an offence punishable u/Sec. 354 IPC. In this context, the leaned counsel for the de facto complainant once again referred to Sec. 350 IPC and contended that the attempt of insult is tantamount to criminal force. I am afraid that mere pressing the legs of the de facto complainant and changing the bus along with the de facto complainant would amount to criminal force or outraging the modesty of the de facto complainant. The alleged inscription on the wall at one instance and on the other occasion the accused expressing his opinion that he was in love with the de facto complainant would stand even on a lower footing. They cannot be considered to be causing annoyance to the de facto complainant. At the most, the accused was expressing his love to the de facto complainant. It was open for the de facto complainant to accept or reject the love of the accused. 8. For the purpose of the present case, the pressing of the legs of the de facto complainant, changing the bus along with the de facto complainant or writing love letter to her cannot constitute an offence punishable u/Sec. 354 IPC. The learned Magistrate is perfectly justified in taking the case on file for the offence punishable u/Sec. 509 IPC only by rejecting the complaint in relation to the offence punishable u/Sec. 354 IPC. In my considered view, there are no merits in the revision and hence the same is liable to be rejected. 9. In the result, this revision petition is accordingly, dismissed. ______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J DT. 10-2-2011 Mjl/*