Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 983 (KAR)

Nagraj M. C. v. State of Karnataka

2023-08-16

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2, who are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Ss. 354, 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC, are before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are the employees of the Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited - company, and the accused, on various occasions, have sexually harassed the defacto complainant. On 7/2/2020, when the defacto complainant, after completing her work, was proceeding towards her house, the accused followed her stating that, she is a widow, and since there is a holiday tomorrow to cooperate them, failing which, she would face the consequences. The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition. 3. Sri Sandesh J Chouta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the essential elements to constitute the offences under Sec. 354(d) and 506 of IPC are conspicuously absent. Hence, in the absence of the same, the cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impermissible. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that, the charge sheet material discloses that, the accused herein have committed the aforesaid offences, and the veracity of the allegation can be considered only at the time of trial, and at this stage, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference. 5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge sheet material. 6. To constitute an offence under Sec. 354(d) of IPC, a man must have followed a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest of such person. In the instant case, there is no allegation that, the accused herein followed the defacto complainant repeatedly to foster personal interaction, except for the stray incident that is alleged to have taken place on 7/2/2020. The charge sheet material also does not contain any material that, the complainant showed any dis-interest. 7. To constitute the commission of offence under Sec. 506 of IPC, the intentional insult must be of such a degree so as to cause breach of public peace or commission of any other offence by the complainant. The charge sheet material also does not contain any material that, the complainant showed any dis-interest. 7. To constitute the commission of offence under Sec. 506 of IPC, the intentional insult must be of such a degree so as to cause breach of public peace or commission of any other offence by the complainant. In the instant case, criminal intimidation has not resulted in breach of public peace or commission of any other offence by the defacto complainant. Hence, the essential elements to constitute the aforesaid offences are conspicuously absent. Hence, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is without any substance. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.8252/2020 pending on the file of the learned 24th Additional CMM Court, Bangalore, insofar as it relates to the petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 is hereby quashed.