LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Fake allegations u/s 354 , 354a , 354d & 506

Page no : 2

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     02 November 2014

You can file a defamation case against her if through authenticated evidences you establish she has done acts against you which defamed your name and reputation in the society.

To you queries:  1) What do you mean by IO not cooperating with us?, are you above the IO? what type of cooperation do you expect the IO to do with you?

2)  IO will file charge sheet only after completing the investigation, if he girl is reported to have absconded, how do you expect the O to complete the investigation, in my opinion he will be having some other idea to protect you from the clutches of law on the basis of her complaint, so wait and watch the developments.

3)If the girl is absconding after lodging the complaint, you may pressurise the police to close her complaint since she has not bothered to cooperate and pursue her complaint, for this your lawyer must talk to the police.

4) You have only applied for government jobs, you have not got one so far (?), what is your worry about the one which is not there.  If you get a government job, a police verification report will be obtained, that time let the police give their reply as per the facts before them.

Your worries are to shed now and concentrate how to challenge her false complaint against you, that is the need of hour.

1 Like

(Guest)
Thanks T.Kalaiselvan ji. By cooperation from IO means that IO himself told my family that he didn't find any evidence against me 3 months ago. I had already lost 1 job of Senior position because this IO and that complainant reached my office and told HR that I was involved in this type of case. So I gt terminated from the company by this reason. I already got selected in Govt Bank PO post , but someone told me that they need some Police verification report , so IO didn't gave that also. Now I have applied for some post in IB department also. This time we don't want any problem from his side. IO himself told that the girl was absconding from city. I got Conditional Bail in which Honourable Court told me not to leave City without their permission. I had aleardy took permissions two times to go out from city for Interview purpose , but every time IO put some point which delayed this process for 2-3 weeks. Everyone knows , even the IO and the complainant that I am innocent and didn't did any thing wrong with the Girl. IO is saying that investigation already gt completed 4 months ago. Now we are confused , how to proceed ????

Adv k . mahesh (advocate)     03 November 2014

its better talk personally about the developments about your case with the IO and through your lawyer ask him to submit his final report to the court as their is no evidence in the case 

because their is no time limit for investigation so he may take some more time and you may face hurdles 

even through your lawyer you can request to complete the process in the next hearing and quote about the lost government jobs and do not give the reference of IB job

1 Like

(Guest)
need expert advice... in my above mentioned case , IO is not filing the chargesheet. he is delaying unnecessary.... my lawyer is forcing for quashing FIR...nd he will charge for this . already we took loan frm market to pay his fees. we r not financially strong....i lost my job also bcoz of this case... is it the appropriate time to go high court for quashing as IO is not filing chargesheet. he doesn't hv any evidence against us as i did nothing wrong. or we will wait for sometime. can we go to high court for quashing withoutlawyer also....any alternativeway... plz gve suggestions on this... rgds Ravish

(Guest)
need expert advice... in my above mentioned case , IO is not filing the chargesheet. he is delaying unnecessary.... my lawyer is forcing for quashing FIR...nd he will charge for this . already we took loan frm market to pay his fees. we r not financially strong....i lost my job also bcoz of this case... is it the appropriate time to go high court for quashing as IO is not filing chargesheet. he doesn't hv any evidence against us as i did nothing wrong. or we will wait for sometime. can we go to high court for quashing withoutlawyer also....any alternativeway... plz gve suggestions on this... rgds Ravish

(Guest)
need expert advice... in my above mentioned case , IO is not filing the chargesheet. he is delaying unnecessary.... my lawyer is forcing for quashing FIR...nd he will charge for this . already we took loan frm market to pay his fees. we r not financially strong....i lost my job also bcoz of this case... is it the appropriate time to go high court for quashing as IO is not filing chargesheet. he doesn't hv any evidence against us as i did nothing wrong. or we will wait for sometime. can we go to high court for quashing withoutlawyer also....any alternativeway... plz gve suggestions on this... rgds Ravish

Raj   08 June 2016

Misuse of the Section 354A by Female to malign/revenge innocent relative towards other family dispute/conflict.

Case : There was already family dispute between both family (relative of each other ) , when the male took the objection to the relative family as not to interfare in his house and give wrong direction to his married life and misguide his wife with whom they acquinted , knowing that there are some already minor behaviourial conflict going on between husbond and wife and took the advantage and enjoyed the rift between husbond and wife . This is classical example in our society as how the realtive take advantage of minority points of relative family and enjoy gossiping .

So in this case when the male strongly objected one day to the other family women and her daugther as not to interfare in his family and not to give wrong path to his wife , in the fit of rage after the mouth word fight between both the family, the daughter of other family misused the section 354 A and lodge the fraud complaint of inappropriate touching by this male to her (who is actually a distant uncle to that girl). As per this blind law provision ,police lodge the FIR without any witness and now trail going on this fake case lodge by that girl, leading to mental trauma to that inncent person.

Misuse of 354 A by Female

Section 354 A of Indian Judiciary Law was introduced to protect the women and their dignity in the country ;However the flaw remained as it was framed as one sided Law which overlooks dignity of Men in the country.

As a result many false cases and misuse of section 354A by females have been reported till date .  It is a request and need of the hour that Government must make the law fool proof so that  its not  misused by any female to defame /trap any innocent person for their personal grudges/fights.

1. This section has provision that , any Female can lodge the complaint /FIR even for back dated incident in a  fit of rage and section says even if female quotes that  some men has touched her  inappropriately that too without any eye witness, still police can arrest the person without preliminary investigation and send him to police custody without any evidence proving the allegations.

2. Another important point in this , that any female can use this section 354 A to Harass male members by falsely implicating him the charges in order to take personal revenge or settle family disputes, since this section supports Female version/complaint is prima face final without any evidence/eye witness

3. The interesting part of the story is that the female who is lodging the complaint need not even hire any lawyer to defend her side nor need to attend the trails. The person who is implicated needs to face the trails and struggle to prove his innocence and have to spent on lawyer fees, it means multiple one sided trauma and harassment . The law fails in controlling the crime instead has become a tool for few people who use it to frame people easily for handling family issues and personal fights.

The law is one sided and has a blind eye towards the other part of the story.

4. It is high time to amend the provisions of the law by balancing both parties so that justice is not denied to the innocent person

5. Recently, I came across a relevant case of my close relative & hence sharing this.

The female member is a distant relative and has lodged a false complaint against her own relative for taking revenge on other family issue/fight/conflict.  In such case there is not only defamation of the family but also lead to mental harassment which can even lead to critical permanent health damages which are irreparable.

6.  Any suggestion/advice /support for such open misuse of this section 354A?

 

Nitish Banka (lawyer)     30 June 2018

Posted by: Nitish Banka  Categories: Uncategorized 
 

 

Misuse of Section 354 ipc: Alarming for Indian men

The term “outraging the modesty of women” is not defined in 354 ipc.

“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 Bombay High Court Justice Naresh Patil, ruling against Machindra Chate’s appeal urging the court to squash an FIR filed under Section 354 IPC of the Indian Penal Code.

This seemingly pro-women pronouncement ought to hearten those of us concerned about s*xual harassment, except it does not.

The problem here is that even the bare facts of the alleged crime committed by Chate do not appear to rise to the level of a Section 354 offense. The owner of a chain of coaching classes is accused by the victim of abusing and pushing her away in “such a way that made her feel ashamed”. This inappropriate physical contact, however, occurred in the context of a heated altercation between Chate, students and their parents over syllabus-related issues — and in the presence of two other girls and a boy.

 

The question  is not of Chate’s innocence, as such. He may be guilty of straightforward assault and/or of violating Section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) — which is the other charge filed against him. The issue here is whether such an act, however criminal, meets the standard of Section 354 ipc which states: “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descripttion for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

The term “outrage the modesty” is, of course, wide open to interpretation, but the Supreme Court did offer some clarity in a 2007 judgement. The Times of India reported at the time:

For over a century courts have tried thousands for the offence of “outraging the modesty” of a woman without a precise definition of what constitutes a woman’s ‘modesty’. And now, the Supreme Court has finally defined modesty. Its definition: “The essence of a woman’s modesty is her s*x.”

The result of the labour of the Bench comprising justices Arijit Pasayat and SH Kapadia will help fill a glaring void in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but the scope of the definition of ‘modesty’ as mentioned in Section 354 appears to go far beyond what framers of the code possibly had in mind.

“The act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for s*xual intercourse…would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman; and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence,” the Bench said in a judgement that has drawn from several verdicts by different courts.

 

By this  standard, Chate’s alleged crime does not meet the criteria of Section 354 primarily because there is no evidence that the inappropriate contact had anything to do with the s*x of the victim. As Chate’s lawyer argued in court, “It was a scuffle, where was the intent to molest her?”

In response, the judges referred to the infamous KPS Gill who was convicted under Section 354 for slapping the posterior of Rupan Deol at a party, using his conviction to conclude, “To say there was no intention [to outrage modesty] is not possible.” It takes great judicial latitude to compare slapping a woman’s behind in a state of inebriation to shoving her in the course of an argument. And even more so to further conclude that even keeping a hand on a woman’s shoulder can be constituted as outraging her modesty — if she chooses to interpret is as such.

 

This kind of “enlightenment”—which violates the intent of the original law—does women no favours. It is precisely this kind of misuse of Section 354—both by the police who booked Chate under 354 when they had many other options and the court that has foolishly upheld the decision — that aids and abets the many misogynists who resist strengthening s*xual violence laws in this country. Much as the gross abuses of the anti-dowry act have long enabled so-called men’s rights activists to attack a much-needed law — and ignore the many victims of domestic violence.

False anti-dowry cases allow such men to play victim, and portray *all* women as conniving harridans ready to use their gender as a weapon. Cases like Chate will allow much the same to happen to Section 354, especially its revised subsections which allow a broader interpretation of s*xual offenses. But as this case shows, the blame lies not with women per se—many of whom are real victims of s*xual and domestic violence, and whom the law often fails to protect—but with the authorities who deploy the Indian Penal Code at their personal whim.

Writing on the issue of free speech (and the poor protection it receives in our courts), Suhrith Parthasarathy writes, “But, collectively, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in allowing speech to thrive is so poor as to make the prospect of restraining prior governmental action or more principled decisions from the lower judiciary an abandoned dream. The court seems to lack the philosophical bent of mind to consider certain rights as inviolable, as superior to the impulses of the majority.”

This inability to carefully consider the intent of the law, and assess the weight of an individual complaint afflicts our courts across the board. This is why we get a bewildering variety of verdicts which rely not on true jurisprudence but the arbitrary interpretation of the individual judge. Where one can decry s*x before marriage as immoral, the other can deem a hand on the shoulder as potentially s*xual. One set of High Court judges can overthrow Section 377 while another pair at the Supreme Court can reinstitute it with equal ease. The result is a judicial system that fails to protect the spirit and intent of the laws it is entrusted to uphold. Justice becomes just another game of russian roulette, luck of the judicial draw.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query