Pulling Woman's Hair, Pushing Her During Quarrel Doesn't Outrage Her Modesty: Bombay HC Grants Relief To 5 Followers Of Bageshwar Baba

The Bombay High Court on Monday said that merely pulling hair or pushing a woman during a quarrel does not amount to outraging her modesty as there must be an 'intention' to outrage her modesty.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan refused to direct Mumbai Police to invoke section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against five men - Abhijit Karanjule, Mayuresh Kulkarni, Ishwar Gunjal, Avinash Pandey and Laxman Pant - all followers of Godman Dhirendra Shastri alias Bageshwar Baba.

The judges noted from the statements of the complainant Nitin Upadhyay and also of his wife, that the allegation against the five men was they assaulted Upadhyay and also pushed his wife, and pulled her hair.

"How does criminal force mean outraging modesty... Can mere use of criminal force outrage modesty? Where is the intention?" Justice Mohite-Dere asked advocates Aniket Nikam and Sadhana Singh, who represented Upadhyay.

Nikam, however, tried to convince the bench while referring to the statements of the complainant's wife, who in both her statements, recorded before the instant petition being filed and after it was filed in the HC, specifically said that her hair were pulled, she was beaten and was pushed by one of the accused persons, while others were beating her husband.

"Her statements, clearly say that her hair were pulled and so her modesty was outraged. This, she says, is her opinion of what is outraging modesty. But where is the intention? She does not speak about any intention to outrage her modesty. Why would anybody not say if she was being inappropriately touched, which is the main ingredient to make out an outraging modesty case," Justice Mohite-Dere remarked.

The judges made it clear that every case of quarrel cannot become outraging of modesty case.

"Every case does not become an outraging of modesty one. The victim has to say so. Merely because criminal force was used and she was pushed does not mean that her modesty was outraged. Pulling hair is not outraging modesty at all. There has to be some intention to outrage the modesty. Suppose if there is a quarrel or a fight, then it is obvious some one will pull hair of the woman or may push her. But that cannot qualify as outraging modesty of the woman. The woman has to say specifically, what was done to outrage her modesty. But merely pulling hair and using criminal force does not mean outraging modesty," Justice Mohite-Dere, orally said.

Nikam once again attempted to make out a case by stressing on the part of the statement, wherein the woman has stated that the accused 'badly behaved with her.'

To this, the bench responded, "Mr Nikam, in rape cases, usually victim states वाईट वर्तन (bad behaviour). But they explain that in detail in their statements as to this and this was done. But here in this case she only says वाईट वर्तन and there is no explanation at all."

With this, the bench refused to direct the Mumbai Police to invoke section 354 against the followers of Bageshwar Baba. It expressed satisfaction that the relevant provisions like section 323 (causing hurt) of IPC has been invoked against the accused.

Further, the bench also held that no case is made out by the petitioner Upadhyay to transfer the investigations in the instant case to some other agency.

Background:

As per the complainant Upadhyay, the five accused men, who he alleges are close-aide of Bageshwar Baba, visited his house on May 9 this year. During their discussions, the accused men asked Upadhyay to make a video that it was he who asked Rs 3.50 crore from a Rajasthan-based follower of Bageshwar Baba for organising the Godman's event there.

Notably, a clip had went viral, wherein it was alleged that the Godman demands Rs 3.50 crores for organising an event in any State. However, when Upadhyay, who too is close to Bageshwar Baba and arranges his events in Maharashtra, refused to make such a video as asked by the accused men, they allegedly assaulted him, physically molested his wife by pulling her hair etc and even slapped his minor child.

A case was registered with the Mumbai Police after the incident.

The bench, however, dismissed the petition filed by Upadhyay.

Appearance:

Advocates Aniket Nikam and Sadhana Singh appeared for the Petitioner.

Additional Public Prosecutor Kumar Saste represented the State.

Case Title: Nitin Upadhyay vs State (WP(ST)/13234/2024)