Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR For Outraging Woman's Modesty By Writing Her Mobile Number On Toilet Wall

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against a man who allegedly wrote the number of a married woman on the walls of gents toilet at Majestic bus stand, Bangalore, calling her “a call girl” following which she started receiving unexpected calls at odd hours from various numbers who also threatened to her life.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Alla Baksha Patel and said “In today's digital age one need not cause physical harm, a woman's modesty can be railroaded by sheer circulation of pejorative statements, pictures or videos in the social media. It is therefore, when such cases are projected before this Court seeking quashment, it should not be interfered with, but be dealt with a stern manner. The petitioner has indulged in one of the ingredients of such insult by fresco or a writing on the wall. He, therefore, cannot get away with making such belittling comments on a woman in public.”

As per the prosecution, the complaint was working as a Junior Health Assistant at a Primary Health Centre and while discharging her duty had given her mobile number to the officers at the Centre. She began getting unexpected calls at odd hours from various numbers who also threatened to her life.

The Police conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and another for offences punishable under Sections 501, 504, 507 and 509 of the IPC.

The petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings argued that Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC are admittedly non-cognizable offences. Therefore, the Magistrate ought to have applied his mind prior to grant of any permission to register the FIR.

Further, there is no independent evidence against the petitioner expect statement of CW-5. He contended that voluntary statement of another cannot be taken as evidence to pin down the petitioner.

The bench on going through the statement of CW-5 noted that she and the petitioner are close friends and she had instructed the petitioner to write on the wall of the toilet of men, in the Majestic bus stand, depicting the complainant to be a call girl along with her number. The reason for such writing was resentment against the complainant due to a squabble between her and the complainant, at the Primary Health Centre. The statement clearly narrated as to how the petitioner was directed and how the direction was complied with by the petitioner.

“A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet supra would clearly indicate, albeit, prima facie, that the offence so alleged would be met,” Court said.

Court said engraving the woman's number on the wall of the men's toilet  would clearly attract the ingredients of Section 509 of the IPC as Section 509 of the IPC makes it an offence against the accused whoever intends to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word or makes any sound or gesture or intrusion to the privacy of such woman would be punished with a term which would extend upto three years.

The court said “The facts obtaining the case at hand would clearly fit into the ingredients of the allegations of the offences so alleged, more so, in the light of the fact of documents produced by the learned counsel representing respondent No.2 / complainant that innumerable calls coming to the complainant as she had been depicted to be a call girl with all sorts of questions being asked, which would be clearly intrusion of privacy of the complainant and insult to the modesty of a woman.”

Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that Magistrate showed non-application of mind, Court said, “The narration in the complaint was very clear that it would touch upon the modesty of a woman. If the Officer at the Police Station or one who registers the complaint does not look into the contents of the complaint and registers appropriate offence, the victim cannot be put to jeopardy. If acts of the Police in not registering appropriate offence based upon the facts in the complaint, it is the folly of the Police and the victim cannot be asked to suffer. Justice to the victim is the soul of the procedure depicted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Same goes with the order of the learned Magistrate.”

Appearance: Advocate Tejas N for Petitioner.

Additional Special Public Prosecutor, B.N.Jagadeesh, for R1.

Advocate R. Gopala Krishnan for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 266

Case Title: Alla Baksha Patel AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order