Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1995 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1995 (10) TMI 201 - SC - Indian LawsWhether there are sufficient materials for taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 354 and 509 I.P.C.? Held that - The opinion of the Investigating Officer that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. were not substantiated by the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation is not a proper one for we find that there are sufficient materials for taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 354 and 509 I.P.C. We, however, refrain from detailing or discussing those statements and the nature and extent of their corroboration of the F.I.R. lest they create any unconscious impression upon the trial Court, which has to ultimately decide upon their truthfulness, falsity or reliability, after those statements are translated into evidence during trial. For the self same reasons we do not wish to refer to the arguments canvassed by Mr. Sanghi, in support of the opinion expressed in the police (final) report and our reasons in disagreement thereto. On the conclusions as above we direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh to take cognizance upon the police report in respect of the offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC and try the case himself in accordance with law. We make it abundantly clear that the learned Magistrate shall not in any way be influenced by any of the observations made by us relating to the facts of the case as our task was confined to the question whether a prima facie case to go to the trial was made out or not whereas the learned Magistrate will have to dispose of the case solely on the basis of the evidence to be adduced during the trial. Since both the offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC are tribal in accordance with Chapter XX of the Criminal Procedure Code we direct the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the FIR and complaint. 2. Applicability of Section 95 IPC. 3. Prima facie case for offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC. 4. Procedural irregularities in handling the police report and judicial orders. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of the FIR and Complaint: The High Court quashed the FIR and the complaint on several grounds, including that the allegations did not disclose any cognizable offence, the harm was trivial under Section 95 IPC, the allegations were improbable, the Investigating Officer did not apply his mind, and there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in its judgment. The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of quashing an FIR or complaint, the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability, or genuineness of the allegations. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the FIR and the complaint, and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC. 2. Applicability of Section 95 IPC: The High Court had applied Section 95 IPC, which excludes trivial offences from penalization, to quash the FIR. However, the Supreme Court held that Section 95 IPC has no application in this case. The Court reasoned that the ignominy and trauma to which Mrs. Bajaj was subjected could not be considered so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain. The Supreme Court also noted that Section 95 IPC is intended to prevent penalization of negligible wrongs or trivial offences, which was not the case here. 3. Prima Facie Case for Offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC: The Supreme Court examined whether the allegations in the FIR constituted offences under Sections 354 (outraging the modesty of a woman) and 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman) IPC. The Court found that the alleged act of Mr. Gill in slapping Mrs. Bajaj on her posterior amounted to outraging her modesty and insulting her modesty. The Court noted that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender could be perceived as one capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR, prima facie, disclosed offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC. 4. Procedural Irregularities in Handling the Police Report and Judicial Orders: The Supreme Court found several procedural irregularities in handling the police report and judicial orders. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, who had earlier given an opinion against the allegations while acting as the Legal Remembrancer, continued to deal with the matter in his judicial capacity. The Supreme Court criticized this conduct and set aside the order accepting the police report as "untraced" due to a lack of reasons. The Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC and dispose of the case expeditiously. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the FIR and the complaint, and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC. The Court dismissed the other appeal as infructuous. The Court emphasized the need for judicial discretion and proper reasoning in handling police reports and judicial orders. The judgment underscores the importance of not trivializing offences related to the modesty of women and ensuring procedural fairness in judicial proceedings.
|