The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that when a woman’s headgear falls off during a push or scuffle, it does not automatically amount to the offence of outraging modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The court quashed a First Information Report lodged against two men under Sections 354 and 447, seeing a lack of evidence to show that they acted with knowledge or intent to insult or degrade her.
The complainant, who is in her seventies, had alleged that her nephews pushed her, she fell, and her headgear slipped, claiming that this constituted an act of outraging her modesty. The respondents, however, argued that the FIR was filed to worsen a property-related family dispute rather than to genuinely address a gender-based offence. The court agreed that the background suggested an ongoing civil dispute over ancestral land, and that criminal charges were being misused as a tool to advance those stakes.
In its analysis, the court emphasised that simple physical force, in the absence of a sexual or indecent motive, does not suffice for constituting the offence under Section 354. The judge observed that the mental element — the intention or knowledge that one’s act would outrage modesty — is essential for that offence to be made out. The court found no indication in the investigator’s records or in the complainant’s statements that the respondents had any indecent design or that they acted with a sexual motive.
Moreover, the court pointed to the familial relationship between the parties, noting that the presence of a longstanding land dispute reduced the likelihood of a sexually motivated attack. It held that it was not reasonably inferable that the push was intended to humiliate or lustfully touch the complainant. Given her advanced age and the nature of the dispute, the court was unconvinced that the act amounted to a gender crime rather than a domestic confrontation.
On the trespass charges under Section 447, the court noted that a civil suit concerning ownership and possession over the disputed land was already ongoing, and that interim orders were in place. It found no clear evidence of exclusive possession by the complainant, or formal demarcation of the property during the investigation, which would validate criminal trespass.
Given these findings, the court invoked its inherent powers to quash the FIR and all related proceedings, holding that the complaint was a misuse of the criminal justice system to exert pressure in a civil property case. The ruling reinforces the principle that not every use of force in family quarrels amounts to an offence under Section 354 — the presence of a sexual or indecent motive is a necessary component for that charge.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.