S.354 IPC | More than vague statements are required to establish Mens Rea : The Supreme Court overturns the conviction

Recently (January 2), the Supreme Court stated that criminal force must be used to enforce Section 354 of the IPC (Assault or violence against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty). In addition, such use of force must be combined with the intention to offend the woman’s modesty.

Banc Sanjay Karol and CT Ravikumar added that in order to establish mens rea, something better than vague statements must be presented to the court. Simple statements about mental and physical discomfort will not be enough.

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant and the respondent no. 2 were the directors of the joint concern namely M/s LAJ-IDS Exports Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the appellant regarding inappropriate behavior at the workplace. Subsequently, a complaint was registered under Section 354 and Section 506 (Punishment for Criminal Intimidation) of the IPC. Outraged by this, the appellant appealed to the High Court with a request to cancel the complaint. However, the High Court refused to grant any such relief, stating that it could not take “microscopic examination of facts and evidence to prevent prosecution“. Thus, this case.

At the outset, the Supreme Court observed that while a court cannot hold a mini-trial, it must consider whether the alleged offenses are prima facie proven.

“In other words, without a detailed study of the record, it should be seen that there is a certain substance in the statements made, which may meet the threshold of statutory wording“, – added in it.

It was further stated that, despite the fact that criminal force is defined by the IPC, there is no such definition of modesty. However, the Court relied on several cases, including a recent one Attorney General v. Satish for the meaning of modesty.

After perusing the FIR and the statement of the respondent, the court concluded that no offense under section 354 was made out. He argued that even the primary ingredients were not respected. Furthermore, no evidence supports appellant’s intent.

“It is common knowledge that something better than vague statements must be presented to the court to establish mens rea. As per the aforesaid annexures i.e. FIR, Preliminary Investigation Report and also the final part of the charge sheet, no direct allegations or any evidence in support thereof can be found to impute intention to the appellant. It cannot be said that the case u/s 354 IPC is made out against the appellant.”

Speaking about criminal intimidation, the Court noted that a simple statement without intent does not attract a crime. It was about a recent case Sharif Ahmed v. State of UPin which it is decided:

“The crime of criminal intimidation occurs when the accused intends to cause alarm to the victim, although it does not matter whether the victim is alarmed or not. The intention of the accused to cause alarm must be established by documentary evidence. The word “frighten” means to make timid or afraid, especially: to compel or restrain by or as if by threats.”

Considering this history, the Court observed that scrutiny of the FIR, the interim investigation report and the chargesheet did not reveal any offence. Before accepting the appeal, the court also discussed the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings. He cited a number of precedents including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Indian Petroleum Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy where it was held that a complaint may be dismissed if there is a clear abuse of the Court’s process.

Taking into account the above, the court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant.

Case Name: NARESH ANEJA @ NARESH KUMAR ANEJA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 17

Click here to read the solution