Kerala High Court: In a criminal miscellaneous case filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to quash the proceedings, A. Badharudeen,J. while quashing the proceedings against the accused persons, said that under Section 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), insulting a woman’s modesty requires that the act or words must be directed at her in a manner that is intended to insult or offend. If a remark, such as referring to a woman as a “prostitute,” is made in a context where the woman is not present, it may not meet the criteria for constituting an offense under this section.
The prosecution alleged that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC and the specific allegation is that the accused persons, with intention to insult the modesty of the complainant, made defamatory remarks in and out the premises of the flat building, where the accused and the complainant have been residing, stating that the complainant is a prostitute. Recording the statement of the victim, the crime was registered and investigated. Thereafter, a final report was filed, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 509 read with Section 34 of IPC, for which cognizance also was taken by the Magistrate.
The accused submitted that even if the words alleged to be stated by the accused are defamatory, the same by itself would not attract offence under Section 509 of IPC.
The Court took note of the penal provisions under Section 509 of IPC and under Section 79 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the ratio of various decisions, and explained that, for an offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC or under Section 79 of BNS, the first part is utterance of any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object with an intention to insult the modesty of a woman, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman. The second part provides that the above overt acts done with intention to intrude upon the privacy of such a woman.
The Court concluded that in the present case, the first part of the offence is not at all made out since the complainant has no case that the accused persons used the derogative text directly to her either to be heard or to be seen by her and the allegation is that the accused stated so to the inmates of the flat and nearby shop owners and the complainant has no direct knowledge regarding the same.
The Court further added that, the second part of S.509 of IPC is intruding upon the privacy of a woman. Thus, the question is while referring to the complainant as a prostitute before the inmates of the flat and nearby shop owners, whether the accused persons intruded upon her privacy.
The Court mentioned that the word “intrude” is not defined in IPC. Its dictionary meaning is to put oneself deliberately into a place or situation where one is unwelcome or uninvited. To put it otherwise, intrude means trespass, horn in, pry into or to join in something without invitation or consent to the privacy of the woman.
The Court highlighted that even though the statement alleged to be spoken by the accused persons was not intending to be heard by the complainant or seen by her, but to third parties, it may attract some other offence, the same itself would not constitute an offence dealt in second part of Section 509 of IPC prima facie.
While remarking that this case has emanated from a difference of opinion in a residence association where the complainant and the accused are members, the Court set aside the proceedings.
[Anson I.J. v State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 5666, decided on 30-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: John Sebastian Ralph V, Vishnu Chandran, Ralph Reti John, Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Appu Babu, Vishnumaya M.B, Geethu T.A, Apoorva Ramkumar
For Respondents: P.V. Saritha Venugopal, Basil Mathew, SRI. Renjit George, SR. Public Prosecutor
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
