Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Madala Venkata Kishore vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4469 of 2021
ORDER: -
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
to quash C.C.No.370/2020 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District against
the petitioners/A1 and A2.
2. The petitioners/A1 & A2 filed the present petition questioning
C.C.No.370/2020 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District,
wherein the respondent-police have investigated and filed charge
sheet under section 509 r/w 34 IPC.
3. Initially, basing on the complaint of the 2nd respondent
herein dated 12.4.2018, the Duvvada police, Visakhapatnam
District have registered a case in Cr.No.117/2018 under section
509 r/w 34 IPC. The contents of the complaint dated 12.4.2018
read as follows:
...Namaste. My name is Lavanya. My husband works in
steel plant. I am working as Yoga Teacher. About 2 years ago, i.e.
during January 2015, both my friend Mani and her husband
Kishore came to our house. They asked me to do some help
financially as they sustained loss in business. I gave Rs.one lakh
which is with me to them. They gave two cheques. When they got
bounced, I told that I would proceed legally, but they told not to go
and confidently told that they would return back the money. By
believing in them, I did not go legally. Since then, they were telling
confidently that they would give. Now, they have changed phone
nos. When we go to their house and asked, they scolded me
indecently. About 10 days ago, when I went to their house and
asked, they scolded me in filthy language. I felt very sad. I have
crumbled like anything mentally for their words. It is becoming very
sad. I have helped them and got blamed by them. Please take
action."
4. Even according to the charge sheet, basing on LW1's
statement that LW1 gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and at that
point of time, the petitioners have given two empty blank cheques
to her. Later those cheques were bounced. After bouncing of
cheques, LW1 informed to the petitioners that she will proceed as
per due process in the Court. Then they told her that they will
return the amount within a short period. Believing their words
she could not proceed further. But they did not return her
amount. After that they changed their mobile numbers.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has
submitted that the contents of the complaint would not attract the
ingredients of section 509 IPC or section 354 IPC. He has also
placed reliance on the statements made by LW1 to LW6. All the
witnesses are hear say witnesses and they are not direct witnesses
and also the ingredients in the complaint or statements of LWs
would not attract the ingredients of section 509 IPC. To support
his contention he relied on two judgments of this Court reported in
between Ayinapurapu Venkata Lakshman Kumar vs. The
State of Andhra Pradesh1 wherein this Court has observed that
the intention to outrage the modesty of a woman or knowledge
that any such act that would be committed by him against a
woman would outrage the modesty of a woman and thereby using
criminal force or assault against the woman, are the predominant
requirements and essential ingredients that are required to be
established to constitute an offence punishable under section 354
IPC.
2020(2) ALT (Crl.) 30
6. In another judgment of this Court reported in between
K.S.Vinay Kumar vs. State and another2 wherein it is held that:
The concept of modesty concerns with feminity including sex.
Wherever there is an assault or insult to this feminity or the like
qualities accompanying it, the offence under section 509 of the
penal code will be made out. Modesty of a women is altogether
different concept which has very little to do with the physique of the
woman. Bashfulness is another characteristic of this feminity. Any
attempt of assault on this aspect may amount to insulting the
modesty.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent has
submitted that there is no necessity to use physical force against the
woman for attracting the ingredients either under section 354 IPC or
509 IPC. As per the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl.MC.No.5130 of 2019 (A) in Abhijeet
J.K.vs State of Kerala and two others observed that as per section
354 IPC prescribes the punishment for outraging the modesty of a
woman by an act of assault or use of criminal force. In spite of the
existence of the aforesaid provision in the Indian Penal Code, the
legislature has incorporated section 509 in it, making punishable
even a verbal attack of insulting the modesty of a woman. In view of
the legislature incorporated under section 509 IPC, no necessity of
physical force or assault even making verbal words against a woman
would come under the purview of section 509 IPC.
8. Though in the present case, the matter is pertaining to
commercial transaction and there are no direct witnesses that the
petitioners have scolded the 2nd respondent/complainant and no
doubt there is no assault made against the petitioners to attract
section 354 IPC.
2013(2) ALD (crl.) 381
9. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and
also on perusal of the complaint as well as the statements made by
the witnesses and on perusal of the observations of this Court in the
above mentioned judgments, no case is made out against the
petitioners punishable under section 509 IPC.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the
proceedings in C.C.No.370/2020 on the file of the VIII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District
against the petitioners/A1 and A2 is hereby quashed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date:22.3.2022
RD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4469 of 2021
Dated 22.3.2022
RD
