HE NEVER TOUCHED HER. BUT A FALSE FIR UNDER SECTION 354 WAS REGISTERED AGAINST HIM FOR ASSAULTING A WOMAN AND OUTRAGING HER MODESTY. CHECK THIS CRIMINAL CASE.

He Never Touched Her. But a False FIR Under Section 354 Was Registered Against Him for Assaulting a Woman and Outraging Her Modesty. Check This Criminal Case.

What Was the Case

Our client lived in a housing society in Sector 57, Gurugram. He had an heated argument with his neighbour over a parking spot. Our client had an allotted covered parking slot near his tower. Over several weeks, his neighbour began parking his other car in that slot whenever our client was away at work. Our client asked him many times to stop, but the neighbour ignored him. One evening, our client and the neighbour had a bitter verbal discussion in the parking area, in front of other residents and the society's security guard. Voices were raised, but no one touched anyone.

Our client escalated the matter formally. He wrote to the RWA (Resident Welfare Association) and asked them to make sure the parking rules were followed. When nothing changed even after two weeks, he filed a written complaint at the local police station against his neighbour for causing trouble and using the allotted property without permission.

Four days later, something strange happened. The neighbour's wife who was not present at the time of argument, filed an FIR against our client under Section 354 IPC / Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. These sections deals with assault or criminal force to outrage a woman's modesty. She alleged that, on the same evening, our client had caught her by the arm and made an inappropriate comment to her in the parking area.

Our client was stunned. He said he had barely exchanged three sentences with the neighbour's wife in ten years of living in the same society, and that she had not even been present at the parking area that evening. He came to SPJ Advocates & Co. within two days of the FIR being registered, badly shaken, worried about his teenage daughter reading about this on the society's own gossip network before he could even explain it to her.

Our client was shocked. He said that in ten years of living in the same society, he had spoken to his neighbour’s wife only about three times. He also said she was not even present at the parking area that evening.

He came to SPJ Advocates & Co. within two days of the FIR being filed. He was very upset and worried that his teenage daughter would hear about the case through from society gossip before he got a chance to explain the situation to her.

What Made This Case Difficult

  • The FIR was filed just after our client's complaint against the neighbour. Because of this, it could be seen as a genuine complaint. We therefore had to carefully explain the reason and timing of the FIR to court.
  • The society's CCTV cameras covered the main gate and the lift lobbies. But the parking area where the neighbour's wife's incident allegedly happened had no camera coverage.
  • The security guard working that evening was a contract employee hired through an third-party agency, not directly by the society. He was afraid to give a statement because he did not want to upset either resident. He was worried that this could affect his job.
  • The society’s WhatsApp group was useful evidence because many residents were discussing about the parking dispute on the same evening.
  • Our client had already filed a complaint against the neighbour, which was still pending when the FIR was registered against him. Thus, both matters were going on at the same time, and any mistake in one matter could have affected or appeared biased in the other.
  • Two residents who were present when the incident happened were not willing to give a formal statement. They did not want to get involved in this dispute between the neighbours, because they would continue to live next to both families for years.

How SPJ Handled It

Weeks 1–4 — Anticipatory Bail

  • We filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, Gurugram stating that the FIR was filed four days after the complaint of alleged incident against the neighbour. This raised a fair doubt about the reason for filing the FIR.
  • The Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail with conditions

Months 2–6 — Evidence Building

  • We immediately sent an application to RWA and the society's facility management office requested them to save the CCTV footage of the main gate and lobby. This had to be done immediately, because the CCTV system usually deletes old footage after 30 days. We asked them for the security guard's daily entry-exit register.
  • The CCTV footage from the main gate did not show the alleged incident parking spot area. However, it showed the neighbour’s wife entering the building from another direction about 20 minutes after the argument had already ended. This did not match her statement that she was present in the parking area at the time of the incident.
  • We contacted back the two residents who were in hesitation to sign the statement. This time, we gave them a written assurance about their safety. In the end, we got one signed statement. It confirmed that only our client and the neighbour were present and arguing, but the neighbour's wife was not present at that spot.
  • Some residents had posted the incident messages in the RWA WhatsApp group, showed the exact time when the incident happened, We collected those screenshots. As per the messages the argument was only between the two men, the wife was not present.
  • We got a photocopy of the security guard’s duty register, duly signed and stamped by the RWA office. The register showed each security guard duty timings and theirs shift details.
  • Initially, the concerned guard was hesitating to give the statement. Our team assured him that he only needed to speak the truth. After that, he gave a formal written statement. He confirmed that he did not see the neighbour’s wife anywhere near the parking area that evening.

Months 7–10 — Investigation and Chargesheet

  • The Investigating Officer's inquiry took longer than expected, partly because the two matters — our client's nuisance complaint and the wife's FIR — were being handled by different officers who were not initially coordinating with each other
  • The Police Investigating Officer took longer than expected to finish the inquiry because two matters were involved. One was our client's nuisance complaint, and the other was the neighbour's wife's FIR. Different officers were handling each case, and they were not coordinating with each other.
  • We submitted the xerox copy of all the evidence to the Investigating Officer (IO). This included the CCTV footage, the WhatsApp screenshots, the guard's statement, and the witness statement. We also requested the IO to look at both cases together, since they were connected.
  • Despite all this, the police filed a chargesheet under Section 354, believing that the matter should be decided by the court during the trial, not get closed during investigation. This was not what our client had hoped for. It meant that the case would take more time to end.

Months 11–15 — Trial Before the Magistrate

  • At the trial, during cross-examination, the complainant could not clearly explain the exact place in the parking area where the alleged incident had happened. Her timeline also did not match the CCTV footage. The footage showed her entering the building only after the argument had already ended.
  • The WhatsApp screenshots and the guard's statement were placed on record and held up under cross-examination, since they had been created or recorded before any legal case existed
  • The WhatsApp screenshots and the guard's written statement were submitted to the court. The evidence was accepted by the court as genuine for cross-examination.
  • The Magistrate observed that said the prosecution could not prove that the complainant was present at the parking spot at that time. The other evidence showed the complaint was linked to the ongoing parking dispute rather than a separate incident.
  • Our client was acquitted (not found guilty) of all charges

The Result

The case closed within 15 months of the FIR being registered. The court found him not guilty. Our client's original complaint against the neighbour nuisance was separately taken up by the RWA, which finally restored and enforced the original parking allotment. Both families (Our client and the complainant) still living in the same society, though they no longer speak.

Facing a false criminal complaint Call SPJ Advocates at +01-8920245815 immediately.

+91-8920245815