Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an advocate, sought quashing of FIR No.570 of 2019 registered at Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad, under Sections 354A, 354D, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The informant (respondent No.2) had engaged the petitioner as her lawyer for a civil suit and other matters. She alleged that in February 2017, the petitioner started sending 'good morning' and 'good night' messages, proposed to her on Valentine's Day via video call, and later took her to Mhaismal in his car under the pretext of a court hearing, where he allegedly made physical advances. The petitioner denied the allegations and argued that the FIR was an abuse of process. The court examined the ingredients of each offence. For Section 354A IPC, the court noted that the alleged acts did not involve unwelcome physical contact, demand for sexual favour, or showing pornography. For Section 354D IPC (stalking), the court observed that the informant continued to retain the petitioner as her lawyer even after the alleged incidents, indicating no fear or distress. For Section 506 IPC, there was no threat to cause injury. For Section 509 IPC, the acts did not amount to an insult to modesty. The court also noted that the informant had already filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act. The court held that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute the alleged offences and that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process. Accordingly, the court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Lack of Prima Facie Case - Section 354A IPC - Sexual Harassment - The court examined whether the allegations of sending 'good morning' and 'good night' messages, a video call proposal on Valentine's Day, and a subsequent drive to Mhaismal constitute sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC. Held that the essential ingredients of unwelcome physical contact, demand for sexual favour, or showing pornography are absent; mere messages and a proposal without any physical contact or explicit demand do not make out the offence (Paras 5-8). B) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Section 354D IPC - Stalking - The court considered whether the petitioner's conduct amounts to stalking. Held that the informant continued to engage the petitioner as her advocate even after the alleged incidents, indicating that the alleged acts did not cause fear or distress, and thus the ingredients of stalking are not satisfied (Paras 5-8). C) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Section 506 IPC - Criminal Intimidation - The court found that there is no allegation of threat to cause injury to person, reputation, or property. Held that the mere use of abusive language does not constitute criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC (Para 8). D) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Section 509 IPC - Word, Gesture or Act Intended to Insult Modesty - The court held that the alleged acts of sending messages and making a proposal, without any accompanying physical gesture or act, do not fall within the ambit of Section 509 IPC (Para 8). E) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - The court noted that the informant had already filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act, but the FIR under the same Act was not pressed. Held that the allegations do not constitute domestic violence as defined under the Act (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 354A, 354D, 506, 509 of IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be quashed for lack of prima facie case.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No.570 of 2019 registered with Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad, and all subsequent proceedings.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR
- Lack of prima facie case
- Section 354A IPC
- Sexual harassment
- Ingredients of offence
- Abuse of process of law
