The Bombay High Court ruled on Monday that merely pulling hair or pushing a woman during a quarrel does not constitute outraging her modesty, as there must be an 'intention' to do so. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan declined to direct the Mumbai Police to invoke Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against five men—Abhijit Karanjule, Mayuresh Kulkarni, Ishwar Gunjal, Avinash Pandey, and Laxman Pant—all followers of Godman Dhirendra Shastri, also known as Bageshwar Baba.

The judges observed from the statements of the complainant, Nitin Upadhyay, and his wife that the allegation against the five men was that they assaulted Upadhyay, pushed his wife, and pulled her hair.

"How does criminal force mean outraging modesty... Can mere use of criminal force outrage modesty? Where is the intention?" Justice Mohite-Dere questioned advocates Aniket Nikam and Sadhana Singh, who represented Upadhyay.

Nikam, however, tried to convince the bench by referring to the statements of the complainant's wife. In both her statements—one recorded before the petition was filed and another after it was filed in the High Court—she specifically said that her hair was pulled, she was beaten, and she was pushed by one of the accused, while the others were assaulting her husband.

"Her statements, clearly say that her hair were pulled and so her modesty was outraged. This, she says, is her opinion of what is outraging modesty. But where is the intention? She does not speak about any intention to outrage her modesty. Why would anybody not say if she was being inappropriately touched, which is the main ingredient to make out an outraging modesty case," Justice Mohite-Dere remarked.

The judges made it clear that not every quarrel can be categorized as a case of outraging modesty. Nikam once again tried to build his case by emphasizing the part of the statement where the woman mentioned that the accused had "badly behaved" with her.

To this, the bench responded, "Mr Nikam, in rape cases, usually victim states वाईट वर्तन (bad behaviour). But they explain that in detail in their statements as to this and this was done. But here in this case she only says वाईट वर्तन and there is no explanation at all."

With this, the bench declined to direct the Mumbai Police to invoke Section 354 against the followers of Bageshwar Baba. It expressed satisfaction that appropriate provisions, such as Section 323 (causing hurt) of the IPC, had been invoked against the accused. Additionally, the bench ruled that the petitioner, Upadhyay, had not made a sufficient case for transferring the investigation to another agency.

A case was registered with the Mumbai Police after the incident.

The bench, however, dismissed the petition filed by Upadhyay.

Advocates Aniket Nikam and Sadhana Singh represented the petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Kumar Saste appeared for the State.

Case Title: Nitin Upadhyay vs State

(WP(ST)/13234/2024).