Karnataka high court rejects Congressman’s plea to bincase over abuse of woman officer

Bengaluru: The high court rejected a petition by Congress functionary BV Rajeev Gowda seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for allegedly threatening Sidlaghatta city municipal council commissioner Amrutha Gowda over the removal of unauthorised banners. The banners had been put up to promote the film of a minister's son.Citing the Supreme Court, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that even the use of filthy language, depending upon the context and intent, may constitute an offence of insulting the modesty of a woman. The judge said the abuses required investigation at the least.
The municipal commissioner, along with the health inspector, had ensured the clearance of film promotion banners as they obstructed the public. Gowda called the officer on the mobile phone on Jan 12 and allegedly abused and threatened her. The commissioner, said to be terrified and mentally traumatised, filed a complaint.Challenging the FIR, Gowda submitted that most of the offences were bailable. However, Justice Nagaprasanna expressed surprise as to why section 79 of BNS was not invoked by police."The provision is explicit and unequivocal. Section 79 indicates that whoever, by words, sound, gesture or act, intends to insult the modesty of a woman would be punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to 3 years, besides a fine. It is a cognizable offence. It is difficult to comprehend how the prosecution did not invoke this offence, notwithstanding the nature of the conversation attributed to the petitioner, as it was against a woman who is a public servant. A person who once held the status of a lawmaker is expected to be circumspect and restrained in his speech, particularly when addressing a woman, a public servant who is only discharging her statutory duty," the judge added."It is in public domain, or a matter of public knowledge, that banners and flexes, whether for film promotion or otherwise, erected indiscriminately across cities create a menace to the public, impede movement, and erode civic aesthetics. The state appeared to remain blissfully indifferent to the rampant proliferation of such banners and flexes across public spaces. Such acts would squarely fall within the ambit of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981, yet action is seldom taken against such disfigurement. It is high time that the state wakes up and enforces the law in earnest against unauthorised banners, placards, and flexes," the judge noted."The complainant prima facie diligently performed her duty. When a public servant performs lawful duties, no individual can claim licence to intimidate or abuse such a public servant for the mere discharge of public functions. Therefore, abuse directed at a public servant, with a view to deter or obstruct them from performing official duties, would undoubtedly attract penal consequences," Justice Nagaprasanna observed while dismissing the petition.