ORDER : The prayer in the petition on hand is to quash all further proceedings in S.C.No.300/2012 pending on the files of Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. S.C.No.300/2012 is a prosecution initiated on the basis of a final report laid by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyyattinkara alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b) and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST (PA) Act). The sole accused chargesheeted for the offences is the petitioner and he has approached this Court in the petition on hand with the prayer aforesaid. 3. Crime No.290/2010 of Poovar Police Station was originally registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 456, 506(ii), 323 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 IPC against several persons including the petitioner on the basis of a private complaint filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Neyyattinkara and forwarded to Poovar Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After concluding investigation in the FIR, a final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Neyyattinkara chargesheeting the petitioner alone for offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act. The case was committed to Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram by C.P.No.84/2011 and that Court took the case on file as S.C.No.300/2012. 4. It is urged by Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner that evenif the entire allegations in the final report are taken as true, any of the offences for which the petitioner was chargesheeted will not be attracted and therefore, the continuation of proceedings on it's basis will be an abuse of process of court. Accordingly, it is prayed to quash the final report and S.C.No.300/2012 pending on the files of Court of Sessions, Thiruvananathapuram. 5. In view of the argument tendered by the learned counsel on the inadequacy of the allegations to attract the offences, it is relevant to have a look at the allegations raised by the defacto complainant. 6. As stated earlier, the basis of registration of FIR is a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Neyyattinkara and forwarded to Poovar Police Station for investigation. The 2nd respondent herein was the defacto complainant who filed the complaint before the court. 6. As stated earlier, the basis of registration of FIR is a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Neyyattinkara and forwarded to Poovar Police Station for investigation. The 2nd respondent herein was the defacto complainant who filed the complaint before the court. The allegations raised by the 2nd respondent are incorporated in paragraph 4 of the private complaint and is extracted hereinbelow: IN OTHER LANGUAGE 7. The offence under the SC/ST (PA) Act for which the petitioner was chargesheeted is one punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (PA) Act as it stands originally. Lateron, it was substituted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f 26.1.2016. The provision as it stood originally reads: “(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty;” 8. Therefore, the ingredients constituting the offence are: (1) assault or use of criminal force by the culprit, must have been against a woman who is a member of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. (2) assault or criminal force, must have been with intent to dishonour or outrage the modesty of the woman. 9. Whether the ingredients above are attracted from the allegations incorporated in paragraph 4 supra is the primary question that needs consideration. 10. It is pertinent to note from the extract supra that the allegations are originally raised against the petitioner and certain identifiable gundas. According to the defacto complainant, she was insulted by calling the caste name after trespassing into her ancestral house and attempting to measure the properties. According to her when she resisted the attempt to measure the properties she was insulted by calling her caste name, assaulted, inflicted with bodily injuries and on herself falling down, the culprits attempted to remove her dress. She cried aloud and on hearing that people around gathered there and then the culprits fled from the scene. Thereupon complaints were lodged before various authorities to set the law in motion. But, the police failed to register a case. Due to inaction of the authorities to act upon the complaints, a private complaint was filed and got the crime registered after forwarding the same to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 11. In the crime registered as above, investigation was completed and a final report was laid. But, the police failed to register a case. Due to inaction of the authorities to act upon the complaints, a private complaint was filed and got the crime registered after forwarding the same to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 11. In the crime registered as above, investigation was completed and a final report was laid. In the statement filed by the learned Public Prosecutor it was conceded that the final report was laid chargesheeting the petitioner alone and for offences under Sections 323, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. 12. To attract the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST (PA) Act, allegations indicative of intention to dishonour or outrage modesty of the victim must be there. Therefore, anything either to dishonour or outrage the modesty must be there to constitute the offence. After concluding the investigation, the police has laid a final report chargesheeting the petitioner for offences aforestated. The final report incorporates the allegations as follows: IN OTHER LANGUAGE 13. As already stated to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST (PA) Act, some assault must have been committed or criminal force must have been used by a person against whom the offence is alleged, to a woman who belongs either to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with intention to dishonour her or outrage her modesty. In Cambridge Dictionary the word 'dishonour' is defined “as a feeling of embarrassment and loss of people's respect or a situation in which you experience this”. Therefore, dishonouring a person means cause him to loss respect. 14. An assault or criminal force intending to outrage modesty of a woman will also attract the offences alleged. The dictionary meaning of the word 'outrage' is : “(especially of an unfair action or statement) to cause someone to feel very angry, shocked or upset.” 15. Assault or criminal force to woman in general with intent to outrage her modesty is made an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Section 354 IPC reads: “354. The dictionary meaning of the word 'outrage' is : “(especially of an unfair action or statement) to cause someone to feel very angry, shocked or upset.” 15. Assault or criminal force to woman in general with intent to outrage her modesty is made an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Section 354 IPC reads: “354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 16. The difference of the provisions is that in the offence, under Section 3(1)(xi) apart from outraging the modesty, the word 'dishonouring' is also there. In Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra and another [ AIR 2004 SC 1677 ] the apex court held:- “12. What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in this Section is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman; and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object. As indicated above, the word 'modesty' is not defined in IPC. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (Third Edn.) defines the word 'modesty' in relation to woman as follows: “Decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd; Shamefast; Scrupulously chaste.” 17. The word 'modesty' is not defined either in IPC or in SC/ST(PA) Act. As indicated above, the word 'modesty' is not defined in IPC. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (Third Edn.) defines the word 'modesty' in relation to woman as follows: “Decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd; Shamefast; Scrupulously chaste.” 17. The word 'modesty' is not defined either in IPC or in SC/ST(PA) Act. It is described by the Apex Court as a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex and held, culpable intention of the accused is crux of the matter while deciding on whether an act of the nature from the culprit against a woman would constitute an offence of 'outraging the modesty'. 18. Under Section 3(1)(xi) also, culpable intention is an element essential to constitute the offence. Therefore, allegations must be there in the final report that the victim of the alleged incident was a member of SC/ST; the assailant, a member of caste other than SC/ST; and he has assaulted or used criminal force against the victim with intention to dishonour or to outrage her modesty. 19. The relevant part of the final report wherein the allegations against the petitioner are incorporated is extracted supra. Bearing the essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST(PA) Act in mind, the allegations in the final report are read. As per the allegations, the victim was paid with abuses, hit on her shoulder with hands and stamped on her thigh causing pain, pushed down and extended with threats. There is nothing in the allegations in the final report to derive an accusation against the petitioner that he had done something with a culpable intention to dishonour the victim or to outrage her modesty. An allegation about the attempt of the petitioner to remove the clothes worn by the victim was there in the complaint filed before the court, paragraph 4 of which is already extracted hereinabove, but that allegation is missing in the final report. Even if the allegations in paragraph 4 of the complaint are taken for granted as the basis for incorporation of the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act in the chargesheet/final report, then also even on an inference, culpable intention to dishonour or outrage the modesty of the victim, cannot be derived from those circumstances. 20. The context in which the incident was allegedly occurred is reiterated. 20. The context in which the incident was allegedly occurred is reiterated. The purpose of visit of the petitioner was to measure the property of the victim. The measurement was attempted by the petitioner with the help of the gundas accompanying him, but, was resisted by the victim and in the scuffle that followed, her dress was attempted to be removed. Culpable intention is unlikely to be attributed to the petitioner. The alleged act when viewed in the context can only be taken as occurred accidentally and not intentionally to dishonour or outrage the modesty of the victim. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason or basis for chargesheeting the petitioner for an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act. 21. Petitioner is also chargesheeted for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC. Section 294(b) IPC is extracted hereunder; "294. Obscene acts and songs Whoever, to the annoyance of others (a) xxxxxx (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.” 22. In order to constitute the offence, the culprit must have sang, recited, or uttered any obscene songs, ballad or words to the victim in or near any public place. 23. The dictionary meaning of the word, 'obscene' is "offending against moral principles" or "offensive to good taste or morals". Therefore, for an offence under Section 294(b) IPC to be attracted against a person, he must have spoken words offending against moral principles or offensive to good taste or morals. In the final report chargesheeting the petitioner, the allegation was that he paid abuses at the victim. There is no description on the words uttered to derive that it was offending against moral principles. For the offence to be attracted, there must be allegations that words offending against moral principles must have been spoken by the assailant to the victim in or near public place. It is derived from the final report that the alleged act was occurred in the property that belongs to the victim and not in a public place. For the reasons as above, the offence under Section 294(b) is unlikely to be attracted. 24. It is derived from the final report that the alleged act was occurred in the property that belongs to the victim and not in a public place. For the reasons as above, the offence under Section 294(b) is unlikely to be attracted. 24. Allegations in the final report are adequate enough to take a view prima facie that the offences under Sections 323 and 506(i) are attracted. Based on the discussion made hereinabove, the Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed in part. In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed in part. Annexure II Final Report to the extent it chargesheets the petitioner for offences under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and S.C.No.300 of 2012 registered on the files of the Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram on the basis stand quashed forthwith. The prosecution pending as SC No.300/2012 against the petitioner can be proceeded against for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506(i) IPC.