Modesty Is An Attribute Associated With Female Human Beings As A Class; Whether Sentence Or Word Outrages Her Modesty Would Depend Upon Her Background: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court observed that modesty is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class and whether a particular sentence or word would outrage the modesty of the woman would depend upon the background from which the Complainant hails, and the circumstances surrounding her.
The High Court was considering a petition filed for quashing an FIR registered under Section 509, 506, 341 & 34 IPC.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad said, “The question as to whether that particular word or gesture would or would not outrage the modesty of a lady will therefore depend upon trial…”
Advocate Mansi Sharma represented the Petitioners while APP Aman Usman represented the Respondent.
The FIR had been registered on the complaint of the Respondent, a Judicial Officer working in Uttar Pradesh. The incident is of the year 2021 and it was alleged that one day when the Petitioner was travelling, her car was blocked by another car. As she was unable to take a U-turn she honked the horn of her car but then the accused who was sitting in the backside of the car came out and started abusing the Complainant.It was stated by the Complainant that the accused hurled abuses at her, threatened her and indicated that she would slap her, thereby intending to insult the modesty of the Complainant who is a lady and intruding the privacy of the Complainant.
It was further alleged that the second person who came out of the car threatened her that he would slap her, had it not been a public place. It was stated that the second person also started abusing her in the same Punjabi language, which is also sufficient to outrage her modesty. The complaint indicated that both the persons who are accused in the present FIR seemed to be drunk. The Complainant called the Police and the Police reached the spot and an instant FIR was registered against the Petitioners.
The Counsel for the Petitioners contended that since the mother of the first Petitioner was not feeling well, the father of Petitioner No.1, who was driving the car, stopped the car to give medicine to petitioner’s mother. Their blood alcohol level test was conducted and no alcohol was found in the blood of both the Petitioners which clarified that they had not consumed any alcohol. Petitioners No.1 and 2 had also tendered an unconditional apology to the Complainant which was placed on record.
The Complainant joined the proceedings through video-conferencing. However, she has refused to accept the unconditional apology tendered by Petitioners No.1 and 2 and stated that the accused must face trial for their conduct.
It was the case of the Petitioners the unconditional apology was given only with the hope that Respondent No.2/Complainant would accept the apology. It was the contention of the Petitioners that the ingredients of Sections 339, 506 & 509 IPC were not made out in the present FIR.
The Bench made it clear that since the Respondent No.2 refused to accept the unconditional apology given by the Petitioners, the Court had no other option but to proceed ahead to consider as to whether the FIR can be quashed at this juncture or not and whether the words uttered by the Petitioners or alleged to have been uttered by the Petitioners have the capability of outraging the modesty of the Complainant would be a matter of trial.
“Modesty is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class and whether a particular sentence or word would outrage the modesty of the woman would depend upon the background from which the Complainant hails, and the circumstances surrounding the Complainant”, it said.
The Court also observed that the question as to whether that particular word or gesture would or would not outrage the modesty of a lady will depend upon trial. It was further held that it couldn’t be assumed that the words uttered by the accused which were present in the FIR cannot at any circumstance affect the modesty of the Complainant.
As per the Bench, the ingredients of Section 509 and 506 IPC were made out and in view of the fact that Respondent No.2 had refused to accept the unconditional apology, the Bench dismissed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR.
Cause Title: Jasdeep Singh & Anr. V. State & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:9862)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Mansi Sharma, Prabhat Kumar
Respondents: APP Aman Usman, SI Satish Kumar, Advocate Aayush Bajpai, Respondent No.2 in person (through video-conferencing)
