Supreme Court Reinstates FIR, Emphasizes Prima Facie Case |

MRS. RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ & ANR. Versus KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL & ANR.

MRS. RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ & ANR. Versus KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL & ANR. - 1996 AIR 309, 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 237, 1995 (6) SCC 194, 1995 (7) JT 299, 1995 (5) ... Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the FIR and complaint.
2. Applicability of Section 95 IPC.
3. Prima facie case for offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC.
4. Procedural irregularities in handling the police report and judicial orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the FIR and Complaint:
The High Court quashed the FIR and the complaint on several grounds, including that the allegations did not disclose any cognizable offence, the harm was trivial under Section 95 IPC, the allegations were improbable, the Investigating Officer did not apply his mind, and there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in its judgment. The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of quashing an FIR or complaint, the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability, or genuineness of the allegations. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the FIR and the complaint, and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC.

2. Applicability of Section 95 IPC:
The High Court had applied Section 95 IPC, which excludes trivial offences from penalization, to quash the FIR. However, the Supreme Court held that Section 95 IPC has no application in this case. The Court reasoned that the ignominy and trauma to which Mrs. Bajaj was subjected could not be considered so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain. The Supreme Court also noted that Section 95 IPC is intended to prevent penalization of negligible wrongs or trivial offences, which was not the case here.

3. Prima Facie Case for Offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC:
The Supreme Court examined whether the allegations in the FIR constituted offences under Sections 354 (outraging the modesty of a woman) and 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman) IPC. The Court found that the alleged act of Mr. Gill in slapping Mrs. Bajaj on her posterior amounted to outraging her modesty and insulting her modesty. The Court noted that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender could be perceived as one capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR, prima facie, disclosed offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC.

4. Procedural Irregularities in Handling the Police Report and Judicial Orders:
The Supreme Court found several procedural irregularities in handling the police report and judicial orders. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, who had earlier given an opinion against the allegations while acting as the Legal Remembrancer, continued to deal with the matter in his judicial capacity. The Supreme Court criticized this conduct and set aside the order accepting the police report as "untraced" due to a lack of reasons. The Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC and dispose of the case expeditiously.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the FIR and the complaint, and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC. The Court dismissed the other appeal as infructuous. The Court emphasized the need for judicial discretion and proper reasoning in handling police reports and judicial orders. The judgment underscores the importance of not trivializing offences related to the modesty of women and ensuring procedural fairness in judicial proceedings.