Case Summary
| Citation | Kanwar Pal Singh Gill v State 2005 through Secy 2005 6 SCC 161 Case Analysis |
| Keywords | Sexual offences, IPC Section 354, IPC Section 509 |
| Facts | That on 18th July 1988, a senior IAS officer, holding the post of financial commissioner and Secretary to the government of Punjab hosted a dinner at his Residence which was attended by some of his colleagues, The advocate general of the state of Punjab, journalists and press correspondence working with some leading newspapers including the accused, who was the Director General of the state of Punjab and the complainant. As per the complaint, it was stated that the accused occupied a chair which was lying vacant at the place where the ladies were sitting and later on the complainant was called for an important talk. No sooner did she come to sit on the chair lying nearby than the accused, the latter dragged the chair twice which embarrassed her and made her to return to her original seat. It was further alleged that the accused could not accept the complainant’s refusal of accompanying him and he slapped on the posterior of the complainant & they did the same in the presence of other guests. They later removed the former from the place for his obnoxious behavior. They narrated the whole incidence to her husband, who was present at that place and latter on, an FIR was being lodged in the police station on 29th July 1988 & they registered a case but no further action was taken. After about months the husband of the ccomplainant filled a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 341,342,352,354,355 & 509 IPC. On criminal revision being preferred by the accused, the high court quashed the complaint and further proceedings under the case Registered by the police. Therefore they made the said appeal to the concerned court. |
| Issues | Whether the allegation made by the complainant constitute any of the offences mentioned above or was it a part of conspiracy to malign the accused? Whether a delay in filling the complaint itself was sufficient to reject the complaint put forward before the court? Whether it justified the high court in quashing the complaint & FIR against the accused? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | The incident happened in the presence of the guests who were all present there. Section 354. Assault or criminal force to women with intent to outrage her modesty. Section 509. Words, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman & intending to insult of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibit any object, or intrudes upon the privacy of such women shall be punishable under Section 354 & 509 IPC. |
| Judgment | In view of the above facts and circumstances it was held that the order of the high court cannot be set aside on the mere assertion that the whole Incident was falsely foisted on him with ulterior motives. However, the judgement passed by the high court quashing the FIR and the case was not found justifiable, and accordingly the appeal of the accused was dismissed & hence was found guilty of the offence under Section 354 & 509 IPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
To do
