Words & Gestures Communicated Through E-Mails Intended To Insult Modesty Of Woman Can Also Attract Offence U/S 509 IPC: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court observed that words and gestures communicated through e-mails which are intended to insult modesty of woman also fall within the ambit of Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court observed thus while refusing to quash an FIR under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court dismissed the petition filed by a man seeking to quash an FIR for insulting the modesty of a woman and stated that the word ‘utterance’ under Section 509 of the IPC should not be given a pedantic interpretation, otherwise, men would walk away unhindered by consequences merely by shooting emails or using social media platforms to malign and insult a woman.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale observed, “words and gestures communicated through e-mails also fall within the ambit of Section 509 of the I.P.C."
Sr. Advocate Haresh Jagtian appeared for the petitioner, while APP Vinod Chate represented the respondents.
The prosecution had alleged that an 80-year-old man, the petitioner, had allegedly written offensive and insulting emails to the complainant. The complainant alleged that the intention of the Petitioner in referring her in the e-mails revealed his intent to insult her.
The High Court explained that the cornerstone of Section 509 of the IPC is the requirement of intent, where the accused must possess a deliberate intention to affront or insult the modesty of a woman. “This intent sets apart ordinary speech or actions from those that amount to an offense under Section 509 of the I.P.C,” the Court stated.
The Bench stated that the Petitioner's transmission of the offensive e-mails to the woman and other residents in the society demonstrated a clear intent of the Petitioner to insult the woman. “No matter that the offensive material was transmitted through electronic media, it would still be ensconced in the interpretation of the words ‘utter’ and ‘gesture’ and ‘exhibit’. Alternatively, it intrudes on the Respondent No. 2’s privacy,” the Court observed.
The Court called the petitioner's argument, that he cannot be held liable for ‘publication’ of the e-mails, as “misconceived.”
“According to us it was intentional, to impute to her modesty. The vein and strain of the writings emphasize the intent of the Petitioner in putting words on electronic medium and transmitting the same to the Respondent No. 2 herself and others in the society to insult the Respondent No. 2,” the Bench stated.
Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR under Sections 354 & 506(2) of the IPC but refused to quash the offences punishable under Section 509 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Joseph Paul de Sousa v. The State & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:33515-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Sr. Advocate Haresh Jagtian; Advocates Suprabh Jain. Pushpvijay Kanoji and Siddhesh Jadhav
Respondents: APP Vinod Chate; Advocates Kushal Mor, Tanmay Karmarkar and Roshan Chouhan
