Karnataka High Court denies request to dismiss FIR for causing offense to a woman’s modesty by writing her phone number on a toilet wall.
I. Advocates who appeared in this case:
For petitioner- Tejas N., Advocate
For respondents- B. N. Jagadeesh, Addl. Spp For R1; R Gopala Krishnan, Advocate For R2.
II. Judge(s): Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna
III. Date Of Order: 04 June 2024
1. FACTS
– 1. On March 19, 2020, the complainant filed a report at the police station regarding receiving inappropriate phone calls, asking rude questions, and issuing threats to their life. In 2020, as per her job requirements, the accuser gave her phone number to the officers at the Chitradurga District Primary Health Center. However, she began getting frantic phone calls at odd times, asking inappropriate questions and making threats against her safety. When she asked about the unwanted phone calls, she found out that her cell phone number was written on the walls of the men’s restroom at Bengaluru’s Majestic Bus Stand..
2. Inquiring about the calls she had received, she discovered that her mobile number had been posted on the walls of the men’s restroom at Bangalore’s Majestic bus terminal, labelling her as “a call girl.”
3.The allegation also stated that specific employees who were familiar with her and were around her had perpetrated this wrongdoing, and called for an investigation to be launched due to the accusation. The offense under Crime No. 60 of 2020 is documented at the CEN Crime Police Station.
4. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner and another for offences punishable under Section 501,504,507 and 509 of Indian penal code,1860.
5. As per the order dated March 9, 2022, the Court has approved a temporary stay order due to the fact that the offenses listed during the crime registration were NC: 2024:KHC:19202, which are prosecutable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC,1860.
In order to report these offenses, approval from the educated Magistrate was needed as they are not considered crimes. In this instance, the word “permitted” granted the necessary approval to file the FIR. Consequently, all further legal actions were stopped, the temporary restraining order mentioned earlier remains valid, and the plaintiff has not been retried.
2. ISSUES RAISED
– 1. Is it considered a violation of her modesty to write a woman’s phone number on a public restroom wall without her consent?
2. The individual facing charges in court challenged the legal process related to a case in Crime No. 60 of 2020 at the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Bengaluru.
The case involved accusations of violating Sections 501, 504, 507, and 509 of the IPC by a married woman who claimed to have provided her phone number to officers at a primary health center while working as a junior health assistant. She started receiving threatening calls at strange times from different numbers that were unexpected.
3. CONTENTION
– PETITIONER
1. The petitioner’s counsel strongly argues that Crime No. 60 of 2020, involving violations of Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, was categorized as a non-cognizable offense. Hence, the educated judge needed to carefully consider before allowing the FIR to be registered.
2. He also claimed that the law is supported by numerous judgments from this Court, specifically mentioning the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi V. State Of Karnataka. The lawyer argued that there is no separate proof of guilt against the defendant.
3. During the investigation, CW-5 discloses the petitioner’s name. The petitioner is accused of being requested to write on the walls of a men’s restroom at Majestic Bus Stand in Bangalore claiming that the complainant was a ‘call girl’. Only this reason has caused the petitioner to be involved in these legal proceedings. He argued that the petitioner cannot be implicated based on a voluntary statement made by someone else. He requested the court to dismiss the entire case.
– RESPONDENT
1. In contrast, the advocate for the complainant argues that the complainant was unaware of the offenses that would be alleged when she filed the complaint. The station house officer or the officer in charge of the police station had the responsibility to document the relevant crime based on the complaint’s details and evidence provided to the Police Superintendent in Chitradurga District.
2. The petitioner is responsible for defacing the walls at Majestic Bus Stop, Bangalore with the complainant’s name as a ‘call girl,’ resulting in numerous unwanted calls to the complainant, making it a clear case for punishment under Section 509 of the IPC. Section 509 of the IPC is considered a cognizable offense, regardless of whether the magistrate has given approval or not, and may not be relevant in the current situation.
3. He guides the court in the application to revoke the temporary order and presents the attached documents to prove that around 20 pages of call records were obtained before the crime was reported. All of them were saved onto a CD and handed over to the Station House Officer. All of these factors contributed to the petitioner’s commission of the crime. He also mentioned that the situation at hand falls completely under Section 509 of the IPC, and the temporary decision has severely harmed the victim. He requested that the petition be dismissed.
4. RATIONALE
– 1. The court’s ruling was backed by various reasons, including the conflict between the term “permitted” in the magistrate’s permission and the coordination bench’s decision in the mentioned Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi V. State Of Karnataka case. As per the Coordinate Bench, if the Magistrate’s approval is deemed as “allowed,” the whole procedure will be nullified. It is simple to differentiate the previous judgment from the information uncovered in the ongoing case.
2. The complaint’s narrative clearly indicated that it would discuss a woman’s modesty. If the police officer at the station or the complainant fails to properly investigate the complaint and file an appropriate offense, the victim will not be put at risk. Justice for the victim is the core principle of the process described in the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure. The magistrate’s learned order is not an anomaly.
3. Another problem at the time was identifying the individuals responsible for the graffiti on the walls, since the crime was reported as being committed by unidentified individuals. The officer carried out an inquiry that resulted in the apprehension of the suspect. The accuser was questioned on June 8, 2020, during which she explained that she had shared her phone number with Shilpa, who then passed it on to Alla Baksh Patel at A.B. Patel, the individual hired to write on the wall of the men’s restroom at Majestic bus stand in Bangalore. Shilpa’s declaration was documented on August 13, 2020. At that time, Shilpa had admitted to her actions and had requested forgiveness for the incident that occurred as a result of her grudge towards the complainant following a disagreement at the Primary Health Centre in Chitradurga.
5. DEFECTS OF LAW
– 1. The court has a duty to uphold women’s dignity when they file such kinds of complaints. A woman’s modesty cannot be taken for granted, as is the case in this instance.
2. Considering the specifics of the report, the station house officer must act more promptly and document the appropriate offenses. The incompetence of the police should not affect the victim’s case, and the officer in charge of the police station is accountable for these mistakes.
6. INFERENCE
– The way the Karnataka High Court is dealing with the current situation is praiseworthy, and the examination of the case mentioned above results in specific consequences.
Invading the victim’s privacy and personal integrity would lead to significant mental consequences. Psychological harm can cause more distress to a woman than physical harm because it leaves emotional scars on the spirit. Any action, written word, or verbal communication towards a woman that is vulgar or indecent will be seen as disrespectful to her dignity, tarnishing her standing in society and causing lasting shame. The petitioner has participated in one aspect of the insult by painting or writing on the wall, he must cease making derogatory remarks about women in public.
The court must take strict action in such matters against not only the person who has written such a statement in a men’s public washroom but also the women who came up with such an idea to deceive another woman. The fact that a woman can inflict such humiliating trauma on another woman speaks poorly about society.
Instead of being tampered with, these situations should be dealt with firmly when they are presented to this Court in order to have them dismissed.
Name- Sanjana Samanta
University- Graphic Era Hill University, Dehradun