Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 – Mere assertion of “filthy language” or harassment, if criminal intimidation or outraging modesty – FIR lodged by the complainant-female employee accusing the company and the appellants of having committed offence punishable u/ss.323, 504, 506, 509, 511 – Filing of chargesheet arraigning the appellants as accused alleging that the appellants physically assaulted the complainant, confiscated the laptop provided by the Company, preventing her from retrieving the data, scolded the complainant in “filthy language”, forcibly terminated her employment, and was removed from the premises of the company by the security personnal who physically harassed and assaulted her – Petition seeking quashing of the chargesheet and the related criminal proceedings against the appellants – High Court dismissed the petition – Sustainability: Held: Not sustainable – On thorough examination the complaint, the FIR, and chargesheet, none of the ingredients of ss.323, 504, 506, and 509 present, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety – Complaint bereft of even the basic facts, absolutely necessary for making out an offence – Nowhere alleged that the act of using filthy language and insulting the complainant by the appellants, provoked the complainant to commit breach of public peace or to commit any other offence – Term “filthy language,” when examined in isolation, and without any contextual framework or accompanying words, indicating an intent to insult the complainant’s modesty, does not fall within the purview of s.509 – In considering the term “filthy language” objectively, in the overall conspectus of the case, the appellants’ actions do not demonstrate the requisite intent or knowledge that would reasonably lead to the conclusion that their conduct could provoke such a severe emotional response as to constitute an insult to woman’s modesty – In light of the employeremployee relationship between appellants and complainant; existing dispute between them relating to the employment; absence of any references to specific words used, contextual details, or accompanying gestures-whether preceding or succeeding the alleged words-failure to mention the use of any “filthy language” in the complaint; and the fact that this allegation is only found in the chargesheet, serious concerns regarding the claim of insulting modesty of the complainant by the appellants – Complaint also does not specifically attribute any threats or intimidation to the accused – Review of the alleged threat reveals that the complainant is primarily alleging illegal termination, which constitutes a civil dispute, rather than criminal intimidation – Charge u/s.511 also cannot stand – Furthermore, after the complainant filed the complaint, NCR was registered – No cognizable offence was initially believed to have been committed against the complainant – Subsequently, FIR was lodged almost two months after the initial complaint was filed, u/ss.323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 – Only s.509 constitutes a cognizable offence, whereas ss. 323, 504, and 506 are non-cognizable offences – FIR does not contain any allegations that would substantiate charge u/s.509 – Chargesheet is the sole document that alleges the use of “filthy language” by appellants in scolding the complainant – Discrepancies and variations outlined suggest deliberate attempt to reclassify the nature of the proceedings from non-cognizable to cognizable or to transform civil dispute into a criminal matter, potentially aimed at pressurizing the appellants into settling the dispute with the complainant – Allowing the criminal proceedings to proceed against the appellants would amount to abuse of the legal process and result in travesty of justice – Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside. [Paras 17-19, 24, 25, 27-32, 35, 37-45]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.