The High Court · 2025

2. Manimala Laxmikanthamma, W/o. Srinivas Rao, Aged about 52 Years, Occ Govt. Job, R/o. Flat No.402, W Road, Balaji Apartment, Epoor Bus Stop, Suryapet Town and District. .RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 OF BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to QUASH the Proceedings in CC No. 97 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Suryapet for the offences under sections 354, 323 lPC. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 OF BNSS praying ihat in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of all further Proceedings in C.C. No.97 of 2023 on the file of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet for the offences under Section 354, 3231.P.C pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, ':<.E-a=7 the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 at none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I i I i I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10109 OF 2025 ORDER: This Crrminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C C No.97 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet, registered for the offences under Sections 354 and 323 of the lndian Penal Code

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the petitioner had no intention to insult lhe de facto complainant and he never tried to outrage her modesty and that the allegations of the complaint also do not attract the said offence. The allegations reveal only injury to the petitioner which is simple in nature and that they do not at all attract the offence under Section 354 of lPC. The petitioner has no animosity against lhe de facto complainant and that implicating the petitioner under such allegations is not proper and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against him 2

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on ne other hand, has submitted that the complaint lodged by the vict n and her 161 Cr P.C. statement reveal the acts of the petition,: . wherein it is alleged that he has touched the chest of the petrtic,r er and also he caught hold of the collar of the victim and has abus€ I her, thus, the acts do reveal the allegation under Section 354 of PC and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition

5. Perused the record 6 The complaint is lodged by the mother of tl r vrctim and the allegations leveled in the complaint do point out the offences under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC against the petitioner 7 . The learned counsel for the petitioner ha: relied upon a decision of this High Court in Pedda Geliche Divaszkhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradeshl , wherein it was held th; t Section 354 of IPC is intended to punish as a special vice and a r offence against public morality and decency. The essence of tirr offence is the intention on the part of the accused to outrage I e modesty of a woman. Ubdesty is the quality of being modest wi rch rn respect of a woman means decent in manner and conduct, (; raste, distancing ' rooog) Ar.D r Crt.) 7 l6 (Ap) 3 from indecency. Decency means propriety of behaviour. Behavior which is inconsonance of good taste which includes avoidance of obscene language and gesture and avoidance of undue exposure of person. lt connotes respectability. Decorum means propriety of speech and manner and maintenance of dignity. Mere assault on a woman or causing hurt to a woman cannot constitute an offence under Section 354 of IPC B. The learned counsel has further relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Raju Pandurang Mahate v. Stafe of Maharashtraz, wherein it was held that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter and that the reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in thrs section is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. The act of pulling a women, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman; and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object. 2 lzoo+; a scc :u t 4 I I 9 By relying on these two decisions, the lear-:d counsel has argued that since the aileged acts of the petitioner < o not constitute an offence under Section 354 of lpC, he therefore rrayed to quash the same. 10 The above cited decisions themselves woulri clarify the pornt that the behavior which rs rn consonance with goocl aste and which includes avoidance of obscene language ar( gesture and avoidance of undue expoiure of person, are z ll the inherent qualities to save the modesty of a woman. The szr J decisions can be applied to the facts of the case and that the act alleged by the complainant are proved to be false and the falsilS or truth of the allegations can be made out only during the time ;f trial. Hence, this Court is not rnclined to express any opinion r,a,i h regard to the alleged acts

11. Therefore, in view of the above held discuss ( n, it is held that the truth or otherwise in the statements of witness shall be tested during the course of trial and it is for the trial Court t r appreciate the evidence adduced by both the parties. Thus, 1i is Court is not inclined to interfere with the pending proceedings a t :his l.uncture. 5

12. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet, to dispose of C.C.No.97 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law, on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court lVliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed To, ,TRUE COPY// Sd/. SRI MOHD ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER l.ThePrincipalJudicialFirstClassMagistrateCourtatSUryapet. 2. The Station House Offlcer, Suryapet ll Town Police Station' Suryapet' 3. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad, [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies GSrcF. & \ HIGH COURT DATED:1 410812025 ORDER CRLP.No.10109 ot 2025 I .: \ \ l4ll:C M I !, I I I I I I i I I 1 l ! l DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITI'( IN 1 '"D $