The Karnataka High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against an advocate accused of assaulting a woman and outraging her modesty, after observing that the complainant herself denied these allegations in a statement made to the police.
Justice T Venkatesh Naik, sitting at the Dharwad Bench, on September 25, allowed a petition filed by the advocate to quash the case filed against him in 2021.
Among other factors, the Court took note of the complainant's further statement recorded by an investigating officer, in which she categorically stated that the advocate had never assaulted her and had not committed any act outraging her modesty.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by a woman in 2021 on allegations that the lawyer had assaulted her, abused her in filthy language, intentionally insulted her and threatened to eliminate her.
According to the prosecution, the advocate had come into contact with the complainant after she engaged him to represent her in a divorce petition pending before the Family Court in Bengaluru. The two subsequently developed intimacy.
During the COVID-19 lockdown, the woman allegedly visited the advocate's native village and claimed that she was his wife. This reportedly led to a quarrel between them, during which the advocate allegedly assaulted and threatened her.
Based on the complaint lodged on June 30, 2021, Hanumasagar police (Koppal District) registered a case and conducted an investigation. After completing the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the lawyer for offences under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and 354 (assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the IPC.
The advocate subsequently approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings.
His counsel contended that the complaint contained serious omissions and contradictions. It was argued that the complainant had made allegations against him in the initial complaint but had completely deviated from the prosecution's version in her further statement recorded during the investigation.
The State opposed the plea, submitting that the chargesheet material disclosed the commission of the alleged offences and that the truthfulness of the allegations could be examined only after a full-fledged trial.
The High Court, however, found that the essential ingredients of Sections 324 and 354 IPC were not established from the material on record.
The Court referred to a wound certificate which indicated that there were no injuries found on the complainant. This raised doubts over the claim that she was hurt by means of dangerous means or weapons (Section 324, IPC).
With regard to the charge under Section 354 IPC, which deals with assault or criminal force against a woman with the intention of outraging her modesty, the Court observed that the culpable intention of the accused was central to determining whether an offence had been committed. In this case, the Court found that there was no allegation indicating that the advocate had assaulted the complainant with an intention to sexually assault her.
In view of the absence of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and the complainant's subsequent statement disowning the complaint, the Court held that the criminal proceedings could not be allowed to continue.
"The FIR lodged by respondent No.2 is without any probable cause," the Court observed.
It further held that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the advocate would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition to quash the case.
Advocate K L Patil appeared for the petitioner.
High Court Government Pleader Praveena Y Devareddiyavara appeared for the State.
Advocate Vidyashankar G Dalawai represented the complainant.
[Read Judgment]