Appeal
1. By a common impugned judgment and order dated 31st July, 2019, a impugned order learned Judge of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed Criminal Petition No. 3961 of 2015 (Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs. State of Karnataka & Anr) and Criminal Petition No. 3962 of 2015 (Madhushree Datta vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.), both filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the chargesheet filed under Section 173(2), Cr.PC and the entire proceedings in Case Crime No. 53073 of 2014, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
2. The accused appellants – Madhushree Datta and Badrinarayana Jaganathan – have taken exception to the impugned order by presenting these appeals.
Facts
Appellant is an employee of IT company was subjected to ongoing harassment by the HR Manager
3. The proceedings before the ACMM have, as its genesis, an incident of 25th October, 2013. The second respondent as complainant lodged a complaint dated 26th October, 2013 with the Sub-Inspector of Police, H.A.L. Police Station, Marathahalli, Bangalore, against M/s Juniper Networks India Private Limited and the appellants. The complainant asserted that she was employed as a Technical System Analyst at the Company, where she was subjected to ongoing harassment by the management. She claimed that she was coerced into resigning under duress, with the threat of immediate termination if she did not comply. Specifically, the complainant alleged that on October 25, 2013, between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., the first accused, who held the position of Human Resources Manager at the Company, demanded that the complainant resign under threat of immediate dismissal. Furthermore, the first accused, allegedly instructed the complainant not to return to work and confiscated her personal belongings, including her laptop, bag, wallet, money, credit cards et cetera. The complainant further asserted that the laptop contained proprietary intellectual property, specifically codes and other work, that she had personally created. In addition, the complainant alleged that the management ordered her removal from the premises, with security personnel escorting her out and reportedly engaging in behaviour amounting to physical harassment, assault and threatening with dire consequences.
Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) states that appellants were subjected the complainant to both mental and physical harassment by confiscated the laptop
4. Following the above complaint, a Non-Cognizable Report was registered on 26th October, 2013. The NCR states that the employees of the Company, namely the appellants, subjected the complainant to both mental and physical harassment by confiscating her laptop, which contained her data. The complainant subsequently filed a formal complaint seeking an inquiry and investigation into the matter, following her forcible termination from employment on October 25, 2013.
5. More than (two) months later, a First Information Report was lodged by the complainant accusing the Company and the appellants of having committed offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506, 509, 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR states that the Company, along with the first accused, subjected the complainant to both physical and mental torture. They allegedly confiscated the laptop issued to the complainant and forcibly evicted her from the Company.
6. Following the registration of the FIR, an investigation was conducted into the alleged offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 of the IPC. A chargesheet was filed on 23rd April 2014, arraigning the appellants as accused. The chargesheet alleges that the appellants physically assaulted the complainant and confiscated the laptop provided by the Company, preventing her from retrieving the data stored on it. Additionally, the appellants were accused of scolding the complainant in “filthy language” and forcibly terminating her employment. Furthermore, with the assistance of security personnel, the appellants are said to have had the complainant removed from the premises of the Company.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants unsuccessfully approached the High Court as noted above.
Consideration
11. We have heard learned senior counsel/counsel for all the parties at length and examined the materials on record.
12. The points for determination that emerge for decision are:
(i) Whether, based on the materials on record, prima facie, ingredients of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 of the IPC are made out, even if the allegations are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety? (answered in negative)
(ii) Whether the chargesheet and the related criminal proceedings against the appellants, are liable to be quashed? (answered in positive)
13. At the outset, we record that none of the two complaints lodged by the complainant – the first on 26th October, 2013 and the next on 23rd December, 2013 – does with any degree of clarity and certainty suggest the presence of the second accused at the time of the alleged occurrence in the office premises of the Company. In fact, when this was pointed out to learned counsel for the complainant, he had no answer. Even though it is admitted that the second accused was not present, we are minded to proceed on the premise as if the second accused too was present. What would be the effect of arraigning him as an accused though not present shall, however, be dealt with at a later stage of this judgment.
14. While considering the first point, we need to examine in brief the relevant provisions of the IPC.
Section 323, IPC: Mere stating of forcible ejection from the company by security personnel would not attract voluntary causing hurt
15. To determine what are the ingredients of the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, it is important to read Sections 319, 321 and 323 together.
16. What emerges on a conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions is that, for a conviction under Section 323 of the IPC, there must be a voluntary act of causing hurt, i.e., bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, to another person. Therefore, it is essential that actual hurt is caused.
17. Turning to the facts of the case, the complaint merely states that the complainant was forcibly ejected from the Company’s office by security personnel, who allegedly attempted to assault, physically harass, and threaten her with dire consequences. Therefore, the complaint does not directly attribute any voluntary act of causing hurt to the complainant by any of the two accused.
18. Furthermore, the chargesheet reiterates the similar version set forth in the complaint, stating that the complainant was forcibly thrown out of the office by the security personnel. While the actions of the security personnel could potentially constitute an offence of causing hurt, they are neither named in the complaint nor figure as accused in the chargesheet. Having said that, the appellants cannot be said to have foreseen or anticipated the actions of the security personnel in such a manner that would render them co-perpetrators of the offence. Hence, there is no basis for the prosecution to set forth the concept of liability of the employer or for the overt acts of its employees in this matter.
19. In the light of the abovementioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the ingredients of offence under Section 323 of the IPC have not been made out, prima facie, either in the complaint or the chargesheet.
Sections 504 and 509, IPC: No such allegation made in the charge sheet
20. The next question for determination is, whether the mere assertion of “filthy language” allegedly used by the appellants in scolding the complainant, is sufficient to establish commission of offences under Sections 504 and 509 of the IPC.
21. In the above context, it would be apt to consider the provisions contained in Section 504 of the IPC.
22. A perusal of Section 504 of the IPC reveals that a mere act of insulting someone does not fulfil its requirements; the insult must be of such a nature that it provokes the person insulted to breach the public peace or engage in criminal conduct. Therefore, to establish the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC, it must be demonstrated, based on the available material, that there was intentional insult with the intent or knowledge that such insult would provoke either disturbance of the public peace or the commission of any other offence.
23. We may, at this juncture, profitably refer to the decision of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra & Anr [AIR 2014 SC 2013], wherein Section 504 of the IPC came up for interpretation and it was held as under:
“paras. 13 & 14 …”
24. In the instant case, the chargesheet states that the appellants used “filthy language” while scolding the complainant; however, no such allegation is made against the appellants in the complaint. Furthermore, it is nowhere alleged that this act of using filthy language and insulting the complainant by the appellants, has provoked the complainant to commit breach of public peace or to commit any other offence. Therefore, from the materials on record, the ingredients of the offence under Section 504 of the IPC, as explained in the abovesaid decision, are not satisfied.
Filthy language
28. The term “filthy language,” when examined in isolation, and without any contextual framework or accompanying words, indicating an intent to insult the complainant’s modesty, does not fall within the purview of Section 509 of the IPC. Had there been references to specific words used, contextual details, or any gestures—whether preceding, succeeding, or accompanying these words—that could demonstrate a criminal intent to insult the modesty, and it might have assisted the prosecution in establishing the case against the appellants.
29. In considering the term “filthy language” objectively, in the overall conspectus of the case, we are of the view that the appellants’ actions do not demonstrate the requisite intent or knowledge that would reasonably lead to the conclusion that their conduct could provoke such a severe emotional response as to constitute an insult to a woman’s modesty.
30. Be that as it may, it goes without saying that each case must be assessed having regard to the specific facts and circumstances, not only of the case itself, but also of the individuals involved in the alleged incident. It is undisputed that the complainant and the appellants were positioned as an employee and senior officials, respectively. Moreover, it is evident from the case presented by both parties that a dispute existed between them with regard to the employment in question.
31. To reiterate, in the present case, the complaint does not indicate that the appellants used language towards the complainant that would warrant an offence under Section 509 of the IPC. However, the chargesheet alleges that the appellants scolded the complainant using “filthy language.” Notably, this allegation is also absent in the FIR.
32. In light of the employer-employee relationship between the appellants and the complainant; the existing dispute between them relating to the employment; the absence of any references to specific words used, contextual details, or accompanying gestures—whether preceding or succeeding the alleged words—the failure to mention the use of any “filthy language” in the complaint; and the fact that this allegation is only found in the chargesheet: there are serious concerns regarding the claim of insulting modesty of the complainant by the appellants. Considering the materials available on record, we are of the view that prima facie ingredients of an offence under Section 509 of the IPC have not been disclosed.
Conclusion
44. We, therefore, answer point (i), referred to in paragraph 12 (supra) in the negative while point (ii) of the same paragraph is answered in the affirmative.
45. Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court, dated 31.07.2019, cannot be sustained and, consequently, stands set aside. The chargesheet and the entire proceedings in Case Crime No. 53073 of 2014, on the file of the ACCM, Bangalore, against the appellants also stand quashed.
46. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
Party
Madhushree Datta vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr – Criminal Appeal No. 4884 of 2024, arising out of S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) No. 10082/2019 – 2025 INSC 105 – January 24, 2025.
