JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - The order of the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 1991 setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Soro, taking cognizance.of the offences Under Sections 341 and 354. JPC has been assailed in this revision. 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 17.2.1998 at about 7.30 a.m. while the informant Ratnabati, the present petitioner, was returning with her sister-in-law after performing Puja in a temple, the accused, opposite party No. 1 herein, dragged her to a nearby bush and gave her kiss. She raised cries, hearing which some people arrived at the spot, whereafter the accused made good his escape. 3. The police on receiving the first information report registered a case under Sees. 341 and 354, IPC and after due investigation submitted charge-sheet. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Soro, took cognizance ol' (he aforesaid offences which came to be challenged in revision before I he Sessions Judge, Balasore. A contention was raised before the learned Sessions Judge that since the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 are husband and wife, as evident from a registered agreement, the act complained of did not fall within the purview of Section 354, JPC. The learned Sessions ludge. accepting the said contention observed thus : "x x x In view of the such marriage having been performed between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2, the victim girl, as per the agreement which was 6 months prior to the date of occurrence, the petitioner cannot be said to have outraged the modesty of the victim girl, x x x"". 4. In course of argument Shri Dhal, learned counsel for opposite party No.l. could not satisfy me with reference to any authority that even if the husband kisses his wife in a public place, it will not amount to outraging her modesty punishable u/s 354, I PC. The petitioner in the present case may be the wife of opposite party No. I, but then relationship should be within four wails and not outside. A husband cannot outrage the modesty of his wife in a public place and to the knowledge of the public. The petitioner in the present case may be the wife of opposite party No. I, but then relationship should be within four wails and not outside. A husband cannot outrage the modesty of his wife in a public place and to the knowledge of the public. Had this been taken note of, the ultimate result of the revision would have been otherwise and the learned Sessions Jude should have been slow to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate whereby cognizance of the offences was taken. 5. In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned order ol the learned Sessions Judge upsetting the order of the learned Magistrate is set aside. Final Result : Allowed