- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Moreshwar v. State Of Maharashtra And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was prosecuted for entering the rented premises of the complainant, Pramila Chakole, and attempting to outrage her modesty. He was charged under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court convicted him on both counts and sentenced him to three months’ simple imprisonment on each count, together with fines of Rs 3000 and Rs 5000 respectively. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by both the first appellate court and, in revision, by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant had already served the sentence and paid the fines, and both parties submitted an application seeking compounding of the offence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the facts alleged support a conviction under Section 452 IPC or, at most, under Section 451 IPC.
- Whether, in light of the settlement between the parties, the offence is legally compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The ingredients of Section 452 IPC are not met because the appellant did not enter the premises with intent to cause hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint; instead, the alleged motive was to seek sexual favours.
- On a correct reading of the complaint and charge, the proper provision is Section 451 IPC (house-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment), which is a compoundable offence.
- Both the appellant and the complainant have consented in writing to compounding the offence, and the appellant has already undergone the sentence and paid the fines.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court accepted the appellant’s submission that the factual allegations do not establish the essential elements of Section 452 IPC because there was no intent to cause physical hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint. Instead, the circumstances fit Section 451 IPC, which criminalises house-trespass with intent to commit any offence punishable with imprisonment. Because Section 451 is compoundable and both parties filed an affidavit consenting to the compounding, the Court held that the matter could be settled. Invoking clause (8) of Section 320 CrPC, the Court ordered the offence to be compounded, which by statute results in the acquittal of the accused.
Holding and Implications
The offence is compounded and the appellant is acquitted; the appeal is disposed of.
The immediate effect is that the prior convictions under Sections 354 and 452 IPC are set aside, and no further penalty attaches to the appellant. The decision turns on a factual re-characterisation of the charged offence and does not announce any new legal precedent.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was charged under Sections 354 and 452 IPC for allegedly committing trespass in the premises which were being occupied by the complainant Pramila Chakole and her husband as tenants and that the appellant tried to outrage her modesty. The trial court convicted the appellant on both counts and sentenced him to undergo three months' simple imprisonment both under Sections 354 and 452 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs 3000 and Rs 5000 under Sections 354 and 452 IPC respectively. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the first appellate court. The appellate court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
3. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed a revision petition before the High Court which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
4. Counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has already undergone the entire sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed has also been deposited. Now he has filed an application for compounding the offence. The complainant has also filed an affidavit consenting to the terms of the compounding of offence. The offence under Section 354 is compoundable whereas the offence under Section 452 is not compoundable. Shri Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that from the reading of the complaint and the charge framed, an offence under Section 452 is not made out as he did not trespass into the house occupied by the complainant for putting the complainant in the fear of hurt or of assault or of wrongful restraint. Learned Senior Counsel also contends that from a reading of the complaint and the charge framed, if at all, an offence under Section 451 is made out which provides for the commission of house trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment. From the reading of the allegations made against the appellant, it is evident that the appellant had entered the house for seeking sexual favours from the complainant and not for causing any physical hurt or assault or wrongful restraint. We agree with the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the offence made out against the appellant is only under Section 451 which is compoundable and not under Section 452.
5. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the offence committed by the appellant is ordered to be compounded with consequential obligations resulting in his acquittal in terms of clause (8) of Section 320, Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Alert