Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice RN Laddha has recently quashed an FIR filed against an Advocate who was booked for outraging the modesty of a cop in 2013 during Ganpati immersion.

The complainant, who was a police official, had claimed that during Ganpati immersion, the applicant under the influence of liquor not only resisted the 4-public officer but conducted himself in the most indecent manner thereby uttering certain objectionable words and creating an impediment in the discharge of official duty.

The advocate approached the high court seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground of implication and argued that the necessary ingredients of the section under which he was booked were not satisfied.

Advocate SJ Mishra representing the applicant submitted that even if the complaint was taken to be true, still it could not be said that the necessary ingredients of the offence alleged under Section 353 (assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty), 504 (insult intended to provoke breach of the peace) and 509 (uttering any word or making any gesture intended to outrage the modesty of a woman) of IPC were made out.

Moreover, the accused advocate assured the court that he shall not conduct himself in the manner as had been alleged anytime time in the future. He also voluntarily deposited an amount of Rs.11,000  with Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority so as to repent for his act as had been narrated in the FIR.

Additional Public Prosecutor AR Kapadnis argued that the necessary ingredients of the offence alleged could be inferred from the statement of witnesses. He also submitted that the witnesses were not only public servants but also independent witnesses.

The high court said that from the contents of the FIR, it appeared that the accused did not use physical force to deter a public servant from discharging official duty and for not cooperating with the lady police officer and also the applicant had made an unconditional apology.

The court said that the applicant asked the lady police officer to dance in the procession and it did not attribute to outrage the modesty of the woman or can not be said to be with an intention to outrage the modesty of a woman.

The court while allowing the application noted, “This Court has already observed that offence under Section 353 cannot be inferred for want of necessary ingredients, so also there is no material to infer that there was intention on the part of the Applicant to outrage the modesty of a woman".

Case Title: Laxminarayan Mishra vs State of Maharashtra & Ors

Statue: Indian Penal Code 1860 and Code of Criminal Procedure 1973