Merely stating filthy language was used not enough to invoke offence of outraging woman's modesty: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalises insulting the modesty of a woman, cannot be invoked by merely stating that "filthy language" was used unless contextual framework or accompanying words used, indicate an intent to insult the modesty of the concerned woman [Mashushree Datta vs State of Karnataka]..A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Kumar Mishra said there must be references to specific words used, contextual details or any gestures—whether preceding, succeeding, or accompanying such words—that could demonstrate a criminal intent to insult the modesty."The term "filthy language," when examined in isolation, and without any contextual framework or accompanying words, indicating an intent to insult the complainant's modesty, does not fall within the purview of Section 509 of the IPC," the Court said..The top court was dealing with a case wherein an employee had alleged that she was forcefully terminated from employment and that her employer had seized her laptop with intellectual property. It was further stated that she was ousted from the office premises by security personnel of the company.The employee further alleged that the two accused, who were her seniors in the organisation, had used filthy language while she was being terminated. A first information report (FIR) was filed for offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke peace), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman) of the IPC. After High Court refused to quash the FIR and chargesheet, the accused moved the Supreme Court..The Court quashed the offence under Section 509 IPC on the ground that that the appellants' actions did not demonstrate the requisite intent or knowledge that would reasonably lead to the conclusion that their conduct could provoke such a severe emotional response as to constitute an insult to a woman's modesty. Moreover, the complaint lodged by the woman does not indicate that the accused used language towards the complainant that would warrant an offence under Section 509 of the IPC, the Court noted.Though the chargesheet alleges that the accused scolded the complainant using "filthy language", this allegation is absent in the FIR, the Court said."The absence of any references to specific words used, contextual details, or accompanying gestures—whether preceding or succeeding the alleged words—the failure to mention the use of any "filthy language" in the complaint; and the fact that this allegation is only found in the chargesheet: there are serious concerns regarding the claim of insulting modesty of the complainant by the appellants. Considering the materials available on record, we are of the view that prima facie ingredients of an offence under Section 509 of the IPC have not been disclosed," the Court ruled..For the offence of hurt, Supreme Court held that for a conviction under Section 323 of the IPC, there must be a voluntary act of causing hurt, i.e., bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, to another person. Therefore, it is essential that actual hurt is caused..The Court also held that before an offence of criminal intimidation to be made out against the first accused, it must be established that the accused had the intention to cause alarm to the complainant.Since these were absent, the Court quashed the same as well..As regards the offences under Section 504 IPC (intentional insults that provoke a breach of peace), the top court held that to establish the said offence, it must be demonstrated, based on the available material, that there was intentional insult with the intent or knowledge that such insult would provoke either disturbance of the public peace or the commission of any other offence..Thus the court ruled that none of the ingredients of Sections 323, 504, 506, and 509 of the IPC are present, even if the accusations made by the complainant are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety. .Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra represented the accused. .[Read Judgment]