The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar has clarified that to invoke Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), mere use of criminal force against a woman is not sufficient—there must be a clear intent or knowledge to outrage her modesty.
While quashing an FIR registered under Sections 354 and 447 IPC, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed:
“Intent to outrage or the knowledge that by the offending act the accused would outrage modesty of the victim woman is basic ingredient of offence under Section 354 of IPC.”
The case was filed by Raja Asif Farooq and another petitioner, challenging FIR No. 266/2020 registered in Srinagar. The FIR was filed by a 70-year-old woman who alleged that while working on agricultural land, her nephews obstructed her, verbally abused her, and one of them pushed her, causing her to fall and dislodge her headgear. She claimed this amounted to outraging her modesty.
The petitioners, however, argued that the FIR was filed as retaliation during a long-standing civil property dispute. They presented evidence showing co-ownership of the land and multiple civil and revenue court orders, including an injunction against construction. They alleged the FIR was used to pressurize them during litigation.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Sets Clear Rules for Sentence Review Board on Premature Release of Prisoners
The Court conducted a detailed legal analysis. Referring to Supreme Court precedents like Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill and Attorney General v. Satish, the Court stressed that:
“An assault or use of criminal force to a woman simplicitor unaccompanied by a state of mind to outrage modesty of such woman cannot be termed as an offence under Section 354 of IPC.”
Justice Dhar considered the familial relationship between the parties and the complainant’s advanced age, stating:
“It is difficult to conceive that the petitioners intended to outrage the modesty of their septuagenarian aunt. Nothing in the complaint or investigation remotely suggests such intent.”
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Orders Expedited Disposal of Seized Buffalo Meat to Avoid Perishability
On the issue of criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC, the Court found that no land demarcation was done and ongoing civil proceedings had already ordered the parties to maintain status quo. Thus, no offence of trespass could be established.
“Unless it is shown that the property, upon which trespass is committed, is in possession of the victim and not the offender, criminal trespass cannot be established.”
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Reiterates Section 15 of Rent Control Act Is Directory, Not Mandatory
The Court also expressed concern over the growing misuse of criminal law in civil disputes:
“The complainant, with a view to settle a civil dispute, has resorted to lodging of the impugned FIR against the petitioners. The same is nothing but an abuse of process of court, which needs to be curbed.”
In conclusion, finding no prima facie case under Sections 354 or 447 IPC, the Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings, ruling that continuing criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.
“Continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in these circumstances, would amount to abuse of process of law.”
Case Title: Raja Asif Farooq Vs UT of J&K
