Throwing love chit at a married woman is insulting, says Bombay HC in a 10-year-old case

Modesty is a woman's most precious jewel, the high court said, adding that there cannot be any "straitjacket formula to ascertain whether it is outraged".

Throwing a chit professing love to a married woman is sufficient to outrage the modesty of the woman, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay high court has ruled in a case that took place in Akola in 2011. Modesty is a woman's most precious jewel, the high court said, adding that there cannot be any "straitjacket formula to ascertain whether it is outraged".

The Bombay high court said throwing love letters to a married woman is an insult to dignity. (File photo for representation)

"The complainant is a married woman, aged 45 years and the very act of throwing a chit on her person which professes love for her and which contains poetic verses, albeit extremely, purely written is sufficient to outrage the modesty of a woman," the court said, as reported by news agency PTI.

The incident took place between a shopkeeper, who was the petitioner of the case, and some Mrs S. On October 3, 2011, the shopkeeper, Shrikrushna Tawari, approached her when Mrs S was washing utensils. The shopkeeper wanted to give her a chit which she refused to accept. He then threw the chit and also said, 'I love you'. The next day, he made some obscene gestures and warned her not to tell anyone about the chit.

Based on the complaint, a case was registered against the shopkeeper under Sections 354, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In 2018, the sessions court convicted him under Sections 354, 509 and 506 of IPC and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment. A hefty amount of fine was imposed on Tawari, including the amount that he was asked to pay to the woman as compensation.

Tawari challenged the verdict claiming that the woman brought a false case against him. He said the woman had "purchased groceries on credit from his shop and was not inclined to pay the amount". The judge, however, said that he had no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant.

"I have noted that the applicant has already undergone 45 days of incarceration and considering the date of the incident or commission of the offence, as the provisions of the law stood then, there was no minimum sentence provided for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. It is only by the 2013 amendment that a minimum sentence is provided. I, therefore, find it appropriate to modify the sentence of imprisonment imposed for offences punishable under Section 354 and 509 of the IPC to the period already undergone," the court added.

(With PTI inputs)