RATNABATI BARIK Vs. CHITTARANJAN ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 1991 setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Soro, taking cognizance.of the offences Under Sections 341 and 354. JPC has been assailed in this revision.

(2.) THE prosecution allegation is that on 17.2.1998 at about 7.30 a.m. while the informant Ratnabati, the present petitioner, was returning with her sister -in -law after performing Puja in a temple, the accused, opposite party No. 1 herein, dragged her to a nearby bush and gave her kiss. She raised cries, hearing which some people arrived at the spot, whereafter the accused made good his escape. - -

(3.) IN course of argument Shri Dhal, learned counsel for opposite party No.l. could not satisfy me with reference to any authority that even if the husband kisses his wife in a public place, it will not amount to outraging her modesty punishable Under Section 354, I PC. The petitioner in the present case may be the wife of opposite party No. I, but then relationship should be within four wails and not outside. A husband cannot outrage the modesty of his wife in a public place and to the knowledge of the public. Had this been taken note of, the ultimate result of the revision would have been otherwise and the learned Sessions Jude should have been slow to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate whereby cognizance of the offences was taken.