Proceedings under Sections 324 and 354 IPC cannot stand absent allegations satisfying their essential ingredients.

The petitioner, a Bengaluru advocate, had represented respondent No. 2 in divorce proceedings.

Following a dispute at the petitioner’s village on 29 June 2021, respondent No. 2 alleged that he abused and assaulted her and outraged her modesty; she lodged a complaint the next day

After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner, and the Magistrate took cognizance in C.C. No. 415/2022 for offences under Sections 324 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), arguing that the offences were not made out and that the complainant’s statements contained material inconsistencies

1. Whether the material on record disclosed the ingredients of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means under Section 324 IPC

2. Whether the material disclosed an offence of assault or criminal force with intent to outrage a woman’s modesty under Section 354 IPC

3. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process warranting relief under Section 482 CrPC

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where continuation would amount to an abuse of process

Section 324 IPC applies where hurt is voluntarily caused by a dangerous weapon or other means specified in the provision

Section 354 IPC applies where a person assaults or uses criminal force against a woman, intending to outrage, or knowing it likely to outrage, her modesty

The Court cited Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 1677, in its discussion of the requirement of culpable intent for Section 354 IPC

The Court found no allegation that the petitioner used a dangerous weapon or other qualifying means, and noted that the wound certificate recorded no injuries; it therefore held that the material did not support an offence under Section 324 IPC

Although the complaint and the victim’s statement to the Investigating Officer referred to assault and outraging her modesty, the Court concluded that the material did not establish the necessary intent for Section 354 IPC

It also relied on the victim’s further statement, in which she stated that the petitioner had neither assaulted her nor committed an act outraging her modesty

In light of these findings, the Court considered the FIR to lack probable cause and continuation of the proceedings to be an abuse of process

Pending interlocutory applications were dismissed as not surviving.