‘Mere Touching would not be brought within definition of Force’: HC clarifies scope of Section 354 IPC

In a high-stakes criminal challenge involving allegations of sexual harassment against a Senior IIT Guwahati professor, the Gauhati High Court stepped in to examine whether the ingredients of Section 354 IPC were even made out on the face of the record. The case arose from accusations that the professor held a startup founder’s hand inside his car and made her uncomfortable during a meeting in Guwahati, allegations that led to a chargesheet and cognizance by a Magistrate. But the Court signalled early on that it was scrutinising a deeper legal question: can “mere touching,” without force, assault, or demonstrable intent, sustain a prosecution for outraging modesty?

The controversy began when the complainant, a startup entrepreneur working under the Atal Innovation Mission, emailed the Assam DGP alleging inappropriate conduct by the professor during a visit to IIT Guwahati in May 2022. She claimed that while he was dropping her to Panbazar, he held her hand multiple times and made her uncomfortable, even stopping near Kamakhya Temple. An FIR under Section 354 IPC was eventually registered in May 2023, months after a departmental inquiry at IIT Guwahati had already examined identical allegations and exonerated the professor.

Challenging the criminal proceedings, Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR was a retaliatory move after the complainant failed to secure a favourable outcome in the internal inquiry and after the professor declined to associate with her startup venture. He contended that even if the FIR was read at face value, it did not disclose the essential ingredients of “assault” or “criminal force.” The State, however, maintained that the allegations prima facie attracted Section 354 IPC and warranted trial.

The Court’s analysis turned sharply on statutory interpretation. After reproducing Sections 349, 350, 351 and 354 IPC, the Judge underscored that to constitute “force,” there must be motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion caused to a person. In a key observation, the Court held: “Mere touching would not or could not be brought in within the ambit of the definition of force as defined under Section 349 IPC.”

 It further noted that the FIR and the complainant’s Section 164 CrPC statement did not attribute any act amounting to assault or disclose the necessary mens rea to outrage modesty. Relying on recent Supreme Court precedents cautioning courts against allowing “frivolous or vexatious” prosecutions to proceed, the High Court found that the belated FIR, filed after the petitioner’s exoneration in departmental proceedings, “does prima facie appear” to be an abuse of process.

Concluding that “no case under Section 354 IPC is made out,” the Court quashed the entire proceedings, pending before the JMFC, Kamrup, and allowed the criminal petition.

Case Title: Dr.Vimal Katiyar Vs. State of Assam, And Anr,

Case No.: Crl. Petition. No. 362 of 2024

Coram: Hon’ble. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr.Adv. Z. Kamar,

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. D. Borpujari, Adv. D.P. Goswami, Addl. P.P., Assam.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com