Skip to main content

Victim's version primary to gauge intention of an accused in molestation - HC

The intention of an accused in a molestation case could be gauged only after hearing the victim's version, said the Bombay high court, declining relief to the owner of a popular chain of coaching classes in the city.

A division bench of Justice Naresh Patil and Justice V L Achliya was on Thursday hearing a petition by Machindra Chate of Chate Coaching Classes, urging the court to quash an FIR lodged against him by a student. A chargesheet has also been filed under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the IPC.

The incident took place on January 30, 2013, when HSC students and their parents met him at his Dadar office to complain about the teaching at his classes. According to the complaint, when a student asked him to take responsibility, he allegedly abused her and pushed her away in "such a way that made her feel ashamed".

Chate's advocate K Holambe-Patil argued that the parents had assaulted him following which, he lodged a complaint; it was at that time that Chate learnt that a student had also lodged a complaint against him.

"It was a scuffle, where was the intent to molest her?" Holambe-Patil demanded. But refusing to be convinced by the argument, the judges questioned how the HC could give a verdict that there was no intention to outrage the student's modesty.

"Even if you keep your hand on the shoulder of a woman, it is for the lady to comment on the nature of the touch, whether it was friendly, brotherly or fatherly," said Justice Patil.

The judges also referred to the Rupan Deol Bajaj vs KPS Gill case where the IPS officer was in trouble for his "pat on Bajaj's back". "To say there was no intention is not possible. Her deposition is required. If the girl says there was a misunderstanding, then the situation would be entirely different. Let the girl say why she felt shameful of the act," said Justice Patil.

The judges pointed out that even with the law being amended there was a debate over the recording of a victim's statements as minute details were asked. "That is the reason why victims in many incidents refuse to come forward," said Justice Patil. Indicating that they would reject Chate's plea, the judges said he could file an application for getting discharged in the case before the trial court.

Holambe-Patil said its hearing might take time and that since Chate would be "contesting the elections, his opponents would use this case for adverse campaigning". But he agreed to withdraw the petition with the judges directing the lower court to expeditiously hear his discharge plea.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Only-girl-can-decide-nature-of-touch-HC/articleshow/31124506.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more