The High Court · 2025

jt|.hearins, upon perusins the Memorandum of non and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M S si#:#l{ t$tffi ' Ji;J::'l::" ;i: # :} JIffi "fl The Court made the following: ORDER T: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Criminal Petition No.g 527 ot 2025 ORDER This Criminal petition is'filed under Section S2g of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short .the BNSS,) seeking quashment of C.C.No.329 ot 2O2S on ttre file of the Xlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rangareddy District at Rajendranagar.

2. I have heard Sri Achyuth Bharthwaj, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramafla, rearned Additionar pubric Prosecutor, representing the respondent No. 1 _State.

3. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.329 ol 2O2S for the offences under Sections 74, 115(2),352 rlw 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, .the BNS,).

4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that, a police report was lodged on 13.12.2024, alleging that on 11.12.2024, in the elevator of Tower-2, Lanco Hills, petitioner No. 1 allegedly used abusive language, wheretrpon respondent No. 2 slapped him twice. It is further alleged that during a compromise meeting Hd on 13.12.2024, the petitioners assaulted the respondent t,lo. 2/de facto 2 NTRJ (x.tf.9527_202s complainant and outraged the modesty of his wife. Based on this report, the police at Raidurgam registered Crime No. 123O o12024'

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the complaint by respondent No. 2 is a retaliatory 'counter-blast' to the earlier police report dated 11.12.2024. He argues that the complaint contains no specific allegations or prima facie material connecting the petitioners to thd offences alleged. Even a bare reading of the police report and statements, it is submitted, reveals the absence of any specific overt act or intention to commit the alleged offence of outraging a woman's modesty. The allegation of voluntarily causing hurt is also challenged as baseless, being unsupported by medical evidence. As for the accusation of provoking a breach of peace, counsel argues that there is no evidence of such provocation or of any disturbanoe to public order. The averments, according to him, are fabricated and without foundation. Even taken at face value, the alleged occurrence does not disclose the essential ingredients of common intention or abetment. Thus, he submits, the continuation of the proceedings amounts to a misuse of criminal law, During the hearing, counsel clarified that the petitioners are restricting their challenge to the invocation of the offence of outraging modesty under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), asse(ing that the prosecution's materials, at their f highest, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of that offence. He ( 3 T{TRJ CRLP-9527 2025 therefore prays for quashmeflt of ttre cognizance taken under Section 74 of BNS

6. Learned Additional public prosecutor opposes the petition, contending that the alleged incident and the overt acts hav,e been corroborated by witness statements. He submits that the applicability of the charged offence is a matter for ttre trial court to determine at the appropriate stage. At present, charges have not yet been framed, and the petitioners may raise their objections before the trial court. lntervention at this preliminary stage, he argues, would be premature. Given the existence of prima facie materjal warranting a trial, the quashing of proceedings at this juncture is unwarranted. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 7 I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the materials on remrd.

8. The petitioners are contesting the allegation of outraging modesty within the scope of Section 74 of ttre BNS. Upon a query from the Court, learned counsel for the petitioners suknitted that the Court may consider the material on re@rd and partially quash the offerrce mentioned in the First lnformation Report (FlR) and the charge sheet. ln support of this contention, reliance was placed on the legal position 4 NTR"J G)9-95,-7 -2025 laid down in lshwar Pratap Singh & Others v' State of Llttar Pradesh' (2018) 13 scc 612.

9. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court' in Hifesh Vermav.StateoflJttarakhand,(2o2o)loSCcTlo.affirmedthe authority in lshwar Pratap Singh (supra) and held' in paragraphs 23 and 24, as follows: 1t? '-"^"-."-":t.:f "23. This Court, in tshwar Pratap Sl/,gh & Olhers v State of lJtta.r Pndesh & errmrft"rpoi. held that there is rL prohibition in law against quashing a criminal J"rg" .i"., in part ln a petition under Section lcr"'c), ttre iigh court is required to examine whether its ir#i*" intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of iustice. The Court observed: '9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external interference in ,"r."G"il.-r',, the specific racts ir tne case' we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercrsed its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice tnere is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge sheet in part A Person may be accused of sev:r:l offences under i',ilr'*i p."r' statutes, as in the inst'ant case He could be aggrieved of onty * , particular charqe or charges' on a-nv gro-und available ;;;rd; ;-;i," rn law, under section 482, itt tnat tne High corrrt is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for imPlementing.orders under the CrPC or for prevention of abuse of process' or olherwise to secure the .,i'0"-"t ir""* A charge sheet filed at the dictate of somedy other than the police would amount to abuse of the Process of law' and hence the High 'Cou.t ougtt to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 t'o the extentoftheabuse.Thereisnorequirementthatthecharge.sheethastobe q,""t'"+""awholeandnotinpart'Accordingly,.this.appealisallowed.The ]rppi..*t"rv report filed by the police, at the direction ot the Commission' is quasned.' ln view of the above facts, we find that the charges against the ;; app"ftant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out Consequently' tnectargesheettothatextentisquashedTheapPealisdisposedofinthe above terms.' 't ) 5 r,IT&J cRrr_9527_2025

10. This legat position has b,een reafFrrned, and it is clear that under Section 482 CrpCt Secdion S2g BNS, a charge sheet may be quashed in pa( rather than in its entirety.

11. ly'y'ith respect to the allegations in the present petition, the police report and witness statements, including that of ttre vlctim {LW_2), indicate that on 13.12-2024, while attending compromise talks in an office, the petitioners and respondent llo. 2, along with his wife, engaged in an argument. lt is alleged that the petitioners ab[rsed arxj assaulted respondent No. 2. When LW_2 aftempted to stop the assault on her husband, the petitioners allegedly ignored her, beat them both, touched her private part, and threatened her with dire consequences.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that mens rea, {he intention to commit the offence is an essential ingredient for tfre offence under Section 74 BNS. Ttre criminal force must be applied against the woman with the specific intention to outrage her modesty, or with the knowledge that such conduct is likely to have that effect. Ivlere acts, such as pulling or holding a woman's hand, without the requisite intention or knowledge, do not attract the offence. Re{iance is placed on the following authorities: (i) Rupan Deol Bajaj & Another v. Kanwar Pal Singh & Others, (1995) 6 SCC 194; (ii) Naresh Aneja v. Sfate of U.P., (2025) 2 SCC 6O4; (lii) Adha Srtnu v. State of A.P.,2024 reC Online TS 3668; and (iv) Sudhr Viftal Medhekar v. State of 6 NTR] @1?-9527-2025 Mahanshtra, Criminal Application No 1269 of 2017 (Bombay High Court)

13. To constitute the alleged offence' the essential ingredients are: (a) assault or use of criminal force on a woman' coupled with (b) the intentionorknowledgethatSuchactwilloutragehermodesty.The term'modesty"referstoawoman'ssenseofdecency'dignity'and propriety; legally, it is the accused's culpable intention that is determinative, not the victim's reaction.

14. ln Ramkripal v. Stafe of M.P.' (2007) 11 SCC 265, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the test is whether the offender's conduct is such as would be perceived by a reasonable woman as offensive to her sense of deeency and modesty.

15. Similarly, in Aman Kumar v. Sfate of Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 379, the Court explained the scope of Section 3M lpc, which 'rs analogous to Section 74 BNS.

16. lt has to be noted that, Section 354 lrc aims to safeguard public morality and decent behavior, and that intentional contact with a woman in a manner affecting her chastity, dignity, or propriety fulls within the mischief of the section. 7 rTRJ a9_9527 2025 17 . ln the present case, all witness accounts refer to a physical altercataon in which the petitioners allegredly touched the private parts of respondent No. 2,s wife. However, when viewed in ttre light of ordinary prudence and absent any specifr-c arbgation that such contact was intentional or made with the knowledge that it would outrage her modesty, the statements and materials even if taken at face value, {all short of establishing the essential ingredients of Section 74 BNS. Accordingly, this Court finds merit in the petitioners, contention. 18. For the afore stated reasons the cognizance order of the trial Court to the extent of Section Z4 of BNS against the petitioners,/accused Nos.1 to 3 stands unsustainable and accordingly the order of cognizance to the extent of Section 74 BNS in C.C.No.329 of 2O25 on the file of the Xlll Additionat Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rangareddy District at Rajendranagar is quashed.

19. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed in part- Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall gtgqq _clSqed SO/- P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGIS TRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 4,

1. The Xlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Rangareddy District at Rajendranagar.

2. The Station House Officer, Raidurgam police Station, Cyberabad. 3. One CC to SRt M S ACHYUTH BHARTHWAJ Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI cl Tr.,^ a'Fl /\.rrriac HIGH COURT DATED:2210812025 I .t/',. t .,' I .,) I. L) 1 \ - .: -'i::_:''-.. . ..\ 2 5 StP 2[25 * /_) F ORDER CRLP.No.9527 of 2O25 PARTLY ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION I