Brief: Recently, Kerala High Court passed a judgement whereby it added “remarks or comments on a woman’s body structure” within the ambit of Section 354A(1)(iv).
Case Description
R. Ramachandran Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors
Kerala High Court
Case Type: Criminal Miscellaneous Case
Case No.: Crl. M.C. No. 4729/2021
Date of Order: 06.01.2025
Bench: A. Badharudeen, J.
Facts
- Accused allegedly made sexually coloured remarks, with the intention to outrage defacto Complainant’s modesty, when he called her body structure as ‘fine’ while she was working at Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (“KSEB Ltd.”)
- Thereafter, the Accused sent her messages with sexual overtures on her mobile number.
- He was charged under Section 354A(1)(iv) and 509 of Indian Penal Code, and Section 120 of Kerala Police Act.
- Therefore, the Accused filed a petition for quashing proceedings before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court.
Issues
- Whether calling a woman’s body as “fine” falls within the ambit of sexual harassment and outraging of a woman’s modesty under Indian Penal Code 1860?
Laws Involved
- Section 354A(1)(iv) and 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”)
- Section 120 (o) of Kerala Police Act, 2011 (“KP Act”)
Petitioner’s Argument
- Mere reference that a person has a nice body structure does not qualify as a sexually coloured remark within the ambit of Section 354A(1)(iv) and 509 of IPC as well as Section 120(o) of KP Act.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Petitioner had harassed the defacto Complainant on previous occasions as well. He had insulted her, using vulgar language, in front of their co-workers in public.
- Post the incident, she had filed a complaint before the Executive Engineer. Accordingly, the Accused had been transferred to another Section.
- However, he continued to harass her through frequent voice calls and messages. He used alternate numbers to send her abusive and vulgar texts.
- Despite her multiple complaints before the Chief Vigilance Officer and the Vigilance Officer, there was no change in Accused’s behaviour. Ultimately, she lodged a complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police.
- Besides the comment, the Accused had also sent her messages with sexual connotations. Considering these facts, it is argued that the offences are prima facie made out and, thus, the petition should not be quashed.
Court’s Analysis
- An offence under Section 509 is brought home when utterance of any word, causing of any sound or gesture, or exhibition of any object, is made with the intention to insult the modesty of a woman or to intrude on her privacy.
- Further, to apply Section 120(o) of KP Act, it is crucial for the person accused to have caused inconvenience or annoyance through any means of communication, a nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous calls, letters, writings, message, email or through a messenger.
- Similarly, Section 354A(1)(iv) applies when any man makes a sexually coloured remarks against a woman.
- Criminal Proceedings can only be quashed if prosecution’s case does not have sufficient material to attract the offences alleged to be committed. Courts have a duty to consider other attending circumstances, beyond the averments made before it, to ascertain whether there is malice behind institution of the case. If malice is established, the case will be eligible for dismissal.
Check out another Kerala High Court Decision on “Inquiry Only by Internal Committee of Employer”
Conclusion
- The Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that prosecution’s case did have sufficient material to attract the offences under Section 354A(1)(iv) and 509 of IPC, along with Section 120(0) of KP Act.
- With this decision, the Hon’ble Bench insinuated that calling a woman’s body structure as “fine” falls within the ambit of sexually coloured remarks under Section 354A(1)(iv) of IPC.
- Therefore, the petition stood dismissed.
Authored by Ayush Bardhan, Trainee Associate, The Legal Swan