Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sunny Murgaokar and Deepak Murgaonkar, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa seeking quashing of FIR No.271/2013 registered at Panaji Police Station under Sections 354D(1), 509, 447 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the subsequent chargesheet filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No.IPC/143/2014/D. The respondent no.2, Varsha Vaicunth Pai, had filed complaints dated 09/06/2013, 15/06/2013, and 01/07/2013 alleging that the petitioners were constantly harassing her by watching her house and its inmates in a manner that caused fear of violence and distress, and that they loitered at her gate day and night, criminally trespassed into her house, and uttered words and gestures to her family, which allegedly outraged her modesty. The petitioners contended that the allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 354D (stalking), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman), and 447 (criminal trespass) IPC. The court, after hearing the parties, examined the FIR and found that there was no allegation of repeated following or contacting despite clear indication of disinterest, which is essential for stalking; no specific entry into the house with intent to commit an offence or intimidate, which is required for criminal trespass; and no specific word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman, which is necessary for outraging modesty. The court held that even if the allegations were taken at face value, they did not make out any offence. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the FIR and the chargesheet, and discharged the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Stalking - Section 354D IPC - Ingredients - The complaint alleged that the petitioners loitered near the gate of the complainant's house and watched the house, but there was no allegation of repeated following or contacting despite clear indication of disinterest - Held that the essential ingredients of stalking were not made out (Paras 4-6). B) Criminal Law - Criminal Trespass - Section 447 IPC - Ingredients - The complaint alleged that the petitioners trespassed into the house, but the FIR did not specify any entry into the house with intent to commit an offence or intimidate - Held that the allegations did not constitute criminal trespass (Paras 4-6). C) Criminal Law - Outraging Modesty - Section 509 IPC - Ingredients - The complaint alleged that the petitioners uttered words and gestures to the complainant's family, but there was no specific allegation of word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman - Held that the essential ingredients of the offence were not made out (Paras 4-6). D) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Inherent Powers - High Court can quash FIR if allegations do not disclose any offence even if taken at face value - Held that the FIR and chargesheet were liable to be quashed as the allegations did not make out any offence (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and chargesheet alleging offences under Sections 354D, 509, 447 read with 34 IPC should be quashed for lack of ingredients of the alleged offences.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. FIR No.271/2013 registered at Panaji Police Station and the chargesheet in Criminal Case No.IPC/143/2014/D are quashed. The petitioners are discharged.
Law Points
- Ingredients of stalking under Section 354D IPC require repeated following or contacting despite clear indication of disinterest
- Criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC requires entry into property with intent to commit offence or intimidate
- Outraging modesty under Section 509 IPC requires word
- gesture or act intended to insult modesty of woman
- FIR can be quashed if allegations do not disclose any offence even if taken at face value.
