Supreme Court Restores FIR in High-Profile Case of Outraging Woman’s Modesty, Sets Guidelines on Quashing Criminal Proceedings

Top Court holds that slapping a woman’s posterior at a social gathering amounts to outraging modesty under IPC Sections 354 and 509; quashes High Court order and directs trial to proceed expeditiously

In a landmark judgment delivered on October 12, 1995, the Supreme Court of India set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order quashing the First Information Report (FIR) and complaint lodged by Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj, a senior IAS officer, against Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, then Director General of Police, Punjab. The case arose from an incident on July 18, 1988, at a dinner party in Chandigarh, where Mr. Gill allegedly misbehaved with Mrs. Bajaj by slapping her on the posterior in the presence of other dignitaries.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 341, 342, 352, 354, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court had quashed the FIR and complaint on grounds including the absence of a cognizable offence, triviality under Section 95 IPC, improbability of the allegations, and delay in lodging the FIR.

The Supreme Court, however, after a detailed examination of the facts and legal principles, reinstated the FIR and set aside the High Court’s quashing order. The Court held that the act of slapping a woman on her posterior, especially in a respectable gathering, constitutes outraging her modesty within the meaning of Sections 354 and 509 IPC. Rejecting the High Court’s reliance on Section 95 IPC (which excludes trivial harms from penal consequences), the Supreme Court emphasized that the indignity and trauma suffered by Mrs. Bajaj could not be considered slight or trivial.

The Court elucidated the meaning of “modesty” as per dictionary definitions and previous Supreme Court jurisprudence, stating that it encompasses “womanly propriety of behaviour” and “scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct.” The test for outraging modesty is whether the offender’s conduct is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The Court found that the sequence of Mr. Gill’s actions - from calling Mrs. Bajaj to sit next to him, pulling her chair closer, to finally slapping her - demonstrated a prima facie intention to outrage her modesty.

Importantly, the Court clarified that intention or knowledge, being mental elements, need not be proved by direct evidence but can be inferred from the circumstances. The Court also noted that the High Court was not justified in embarking upon an inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations at the stage of quashing the FIR.

Further, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in the seminal judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), specifying the limited and rare circumstances under which a High Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings. These include situations where allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, or where legal bars exist for prosecution.

The Court also criticized the manner in which the police and magistrate handled the investigation and the police report recommending closure of the case as “untraced,” observing procedural irregularities and potential conflicts of interest in the magistrate who accepted the police report.

As a result, the Supreme Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC and proceed with the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months. The Court made it clear that its observations on facts were only for deciding the prima facie case and should not influence the trial court’s final decision on the evidence.

The Court also dismissed the related appeal filed by Mr. B.R. Bajaj (husband of Mrs. Bajaj) as infructuous since the complaint case loses independent existence once cognizance is taken on the police report.

Finally, the Court noted that the offences in question are compoundable with the permission of the Court and suggested that the parties may consider resolving the matter amicably.

This judgment significantly reinforces the protection of women’s dignity and sets important precedents on the threshold for quashing FIRs involving offences against modesty. It also underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair investigation and trial procedures.

Statutory provisions: Indian Penal Code Sections 341, 342, 352, 354, 509, 95; Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 157, 173, 190, 210, 482; Evidence Act Sections 123, 124; Constitution of India Article 226

Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 42216