Dismissed

Ram Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2019CRLR/4694/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 4694 of 2010, the Single Bench held that framing a charge under Section 509 I.P.C. based on accused laughing while co-accused touched the victim was not a material irregularity or jurisdictional error under the facts presented. The revision was dismissed, and any stay order was vacated.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed and stay order, if any, vacated.

Ram Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4694 of 2010

¶3

Revisionist :- Ram Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- K.K.Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Shri K. K. Rao, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A are present.

¶6

Heard on revision.

¶7

This revision has been filed against the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No-9, Gorakhpur in S.T No. 142 of 2010 (State Vs. Bhuwaneshwar Ram and others), Police Station Cantt, District Gorakhpur by which the learned trial court has directed for framing of charge for the offence under Section 509 I.P.C against the revisionist.

¶8

From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial court only for the reason that accused revisionist used to laugh when co-accused Bhuwaneshwar Ram used to call opposite party no. 2 and used to touch her and the revisionist used to laugh on this act.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that laughing cannot be categorized to be an offence under Section 509 I.P.C, although it is not necessary to express a definite view on this point but perusal of the said section is necessary. Section 509 I.P.C reads as follows:

¶10

" Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. —Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine."

¶11

From the perusal of the above definition of the offence, it appears that anything which is intended to insult the modesty of any woman, it may be word, by any sound or gesture or by exhibit of any object with the intention that if such word or sound be heard and that such gesture shall be seen by such

¶12

women that will intrude on the privacy of that women.

¶13

In view of the above definition provided under Section 509 I.P.C, it cannot be said that the learned trial court committed any material irregularity or illegality or any jurisdictional error by directing framing charge. On being asked during argument whether there is any explanation to put forward what was the reason for laughing at such occasion, the learned counsel has not been able to give a definite reply.

¶14

In view of the above, I find no force in the revision and the revision is dismissed.

¶15

Stay order, if any, shall stand vacated.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.12.2019 PS

Ram Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahipal Vs State of U.P.and Others

Ghaseeta Vs Dal Chand and Others

Smt. Pushpa Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shahjahan Begum and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Pradeep Kumar Vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi

Smt. Sushila Singh Vs State of U.P.and Others