LexRUPAN DEOL BAJAJ AND ANR. versus KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RUPAN DEOL BAJA.I AND ANR.
v.
KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL AND ANR.
OCTOBER 12, 1995
[DR. AS. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.J.]
Indian Penal Code, 1861!-Sections 354, 509----Modesty of woman-
A1caning of--Test for asce1taining lvhether n1odesty has been outraged-A·ction
of offender capable of shocking sense of decency of a woman.
Sections 339 & 34 l-Wrongfitlly res1raine1}-{)jji:nce of-Standing in
front of a lady in such a n1anner that she had to nzove backward-It cannot
be said /Ital he 'wrongfully restrained' he1--0ffence u/s 341 not made out.
A
B
c
Section 95--0ffences of llivial nature-Expression 'hann' (ncludes
physical injiuy as also injurious niental reoction--Offence relating to n1odesty D
of won1an-Undcr no circ1unstances it can be llivial-Sec. 95 not applicable.
C1in1inal Procedure Code, 1973--Section 482~uashing an FIR or
con1plaint-P1inciplc of /a1v.
Section 173--:Police repon--Cotut taking cognizance--Judicial discre-
tion--Police repo1t reconunending discharge of accused-Person agg1ievcd
raising objection to acceptance of police repon-Necessity tu record reasons.
E
The Appellant, an Ollicer of the Indian Administrative Service
belonging to the Punjab Cadre ~ind then \\'orking as the Spetial Sctretar.r, F
Finance, lodged a corn plaint alleging comn1ission of oflences u/ss 341, 342,
352, 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code by the respondent, the Director
General of Police, Punjab at a dinner party. Treating that con1plaint as
the First Infor1nation Report a case "'as registered and investigation "'as
taken up. Husband of the appellant also lodged a complaint in the Court G
of the Chief Judicial l\1agistrate for the same otl'ences, alleging: that
respondent being a high-ranking Police Ollicer the Police had neither
arrested hin1 on his wile's complaint nor conducted investigation in a fair
and hnpartial manner and apprehending that the Police "'ould conclude
the investigation by treating the case as untraced he \Vas tiling the com-
plaint. In the meantime respondent n10\•ed the High Court by filing a H
237
A
B
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R ..
petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. for lJUashing the FIR. An interim order was
passed staying the investigation into the FIR lodged by the appellant, but
not the proceedings initiated on the complaint of her husband. Sub-
se11uently, however both the HR and the complaint were quashed.
In the FIR, it was stated that one evening, appellant accompanied by
her hushand had gone to the residence of a colleague of theirs, in response
to an invitation for dinner. There were 20/25 couples present including the
respondent, who had come \\-'ithout his \\ifC, and some other senior c;overn-
ment Ollicers. The ladies were sitting segregated in a large semi-circle and
the gentlemen in another large semi-circle uith the groups facing each
C
other. The respondent walked across to the circle of ladies and joined them
occupying a vacant chair about 5 to 6 chairs to the left of where the
appellant was sitting. Slowly all the ladies sitting to the right and left of
him started going into the house. The respondent called out to the appel-
lant and said that she should come and sit next to him as he wanted to
D talk to her. Responding to his such request when the appellant went to sit
in a chair next to him, the respondent suddenly pulled that chair close to
his chair. Realising something was wrong she went back to sit With the
ladies. Aller about 10 minutes respondent came and stood in front ol' her
so close that his legs were about 4
11 from her knees. He then by an action
with the crook of his finger asked her to 'get up immediately' and come
E along with him. When she strongly objected to his behaviour he re11eated
his earlier command. She tried to leave the place but could not as he had
blocked her way. When she drew her chair back and turned backwards, he
slapped her on the posterior in the full presence of the ladies and gents.
F
The High Court held that the allegations made therein did not
G
H
disclose any cognizable offence; that the nature ol' harm allegedly caused
to the appellant did not entitle her to complain about the same in view ol'
section 95 IPC; that the allegations were unnatural and improbable; that
the Investigating Oflicer did not apply his mind to the allegations n1ade
in the FIR as there was no reason to suspect commission of a cognizable
otl"ence, which was unreasonable and unexplained delay of Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.