Every ‘outraging modesty’ FIR has ‘haath maara’: Delhi High Court raps cops, wants ‘gross misuse’ cured at police stations

The Delhi High Court recently came down heavily on police stations and their manner in which FIRs alleging outraging of women’s modesty are drafted, observing it as “gross misuse” of the law, which requires introspection at the level of police stations.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was hearing a plea seeking the quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings after a settlement between the complainant, an event manager, and the accused persons who allegedly assaulted her under the influence of alcohol and were forcing her to dance.

“It is unfortunate that in every FIR under Section 354, typically the words “haath mara” are being written, which is not being endorsed by the Complainant. It is gross misuse of the Law and requires introspection at the level of the Police Stations,” the court said.

Section 354 of the IPC deals with the punishment for outraging the modesty of women and provides that if someone assaults or uses criminal force against any woman with the intention to outrage her modesty, and then they will face imprisonment ranging from one to five years, along with a fine.

The court was referring to FIRs under Section 354 of the IPC, however, in the present matter, an FIR was lodged under section 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which corresponds to the offence of assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty and is broadly parallel to the section 354 of the IPC.

It was placed on record that the survivor and the accused have amicably settled the matter after their common friends and well-wishers intervened.

The court further noted that the settlement dated December 3 also included that both the survivor and the accused would not file “any complaint or proceedings” against each other and would live “peacefully in future”.

The complainant was present in court when she stated that she had no objection to the quashing of the said FIR.

Noting that the survivor has entered into the settlement “voluntarily” and “without any fear” and “coercion” and undertakes to remain bound by the terms, the court, in its December 17 order, instructed to quash the FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising from it.

The high court further directed to send a copy of the order to the deputy commissioner of police to ensure that no conjured or unendorsed averments are inserted in complaints by the police.

In a separate case, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that holding a woman’s hand, pulling her towards oneself, and saying “I love you” amounts to outraging her modesty.

“In the instant case, the appellant not only held the hand of the victim, rather he also pulled her towards him by saying ‘I love you’. Such behaviour of a young boy with any girl, particularly of a rural area, is considered highly objectionable,” Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi said.

In another unrelated matter, the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s order cancelling the bail of an accused who assaulted a woman employee of a Mumbai nightclub inside a lift, an incident that allegedly resulted in her miscarriage.

A vacation bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices J K Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih found the High Court’s conclusions to be “legally correct”.