Summary
The Supreme Court quashed a chargesheet under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509 and 511 IPC against two officials of the complainant's employer, filed over her forced resignation and the taking back of her laptop. Even taken at face value, the complaint, FIR and chargesheet disclosed none of the ingredients of the offences: the dispute was essentially about termination and was civil in nature, and the prosecution was an abuse of process.
Issues
- Whether, taking the allegations at face value, the complaint, FIR and chargesheet disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509 and 511 IPC against the appellants.
- Whether the chargesheet and criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 323 (read with Sections 319 and 321), Indian Penal Code, 1860Read together, these require a voluntary act actually causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity. The complaint attributed the forcible removal only to security personnel, who were not named or charged, and no act of causing hurt to either appellant, so the offence was not made out. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Section 504, Indian Penal Code, 1860Applying Fiona Shrikhande, the Court held that an intentional insult intended or known to be likely to provoke a breach of the public peace or another offence is required; the allegation of 'filthy language' appeared only in the chargesheet, and provocation was not alleged at all. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Section 509, Indian Penal Code, 1860Relying on Ramkripal and Rupan Deol Bajaj for what amounts to insulting a woman's modesty, the Court held that a bare reference to 'filthy language', without specific words, context or gestures and absent from the complaint and FIR, did not show intent to insult modesty. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32)
- Sections 503 and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860Following Manik Taneja, criminal intimidation requires a threat of injury made with intent to cause alarm. No threat was attributed to the second accused. The first accused's statement asking the complainant to resign or be sent out was in substance an allegation of illegal termination, a civil dispute already referred to the labour court. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35, 36, 37)
- Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The argument that the first accused acted at the behest of the second accused was rejected because Section 34 had not been invoked. (¶ 35)
- Section 511, Indian Penal Code, 1860Since the ingredients of the substantive offences were not made out, the charge of attempt could not stand. (¶ 39)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The inherent power was exercised to quash the chargesheet and proceedings, as allowing them to continue would be an abuse of process. (¶¶ 42, 45)
Held
- An offence under Section 323 IPC requires that actual hurt be caused by a voluntary act of the accused. Acts of security personnel who were neither named nor charged could not be attributed to the appellants, who could not have foreseen them so as to become co-perpetrators, and employer liability for employees' acts had no place here. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Mere abuse or insult is not enough for Section 504 IPC; the insult must be intended or known to be likely to provoke a breach of the public peace or another offence. A general allegation of 'filthy language', found only in the chargesheet, with no allegation of such provocation, does not satisfy the section. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
- The words 'filthy language', viewed in isolation without the words used, the context or accompanying gestures, do not show intent to insult a woman's modesty under Section 509 IPC. The employer-employee relationship, the existing employment dispute and the appearance of the allegation only in the chargesheet raised serious doubts about the claim. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Asking an employee to resign or be sent out immediately, with nothing showing an intent to cause alarm, is in substance an allegation of illegal termination, a civil dispute, and not criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC; no threat was attributed to the second accused at all. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37)
- None of the ingredients of Sections 323, 504, 506 and 509 IPC was present even on accepting the complaint, FIR and chargesheet in full, and the charge under Section 511 IPC fell with them. (¶¶ 38, 39)
- The initial registration of a non-cognizable report, the later FIR, which included the only cognizable offence (Section 509) without allegations supporting it, the allegation of 'filthy language' surfacing only in the chargesheet, and the arraignment of the second accused, whose presence was not alleged, indicated an attempt to turn a civil employment dispute into a criminal case to pressure the appellants into a settlement. Continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process. (¶¶ 13, 40, 41, 42)
- Having quashed the proceedings on merits, the Court found it unnecessary to examine whether the police could register the FIR after the non-cognizable report. (¶ 43)
Result
Appeals allowed. The High Court's order of 31.07.2019 set aside, and the chargesheet and all proceedings in Case Crime No. 53073 of 2014 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore quashed against the appellants; the observations are not to affect the reference pending before the labour court.