In a ruling that carefully delineates the scope of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an unwelcome attempt to start a conversation with a woman, though “annoying”, cannot by itself constitute outraging her modesty.
Justice Kirti Singh observed, “To the considered mind of this Court, the said act, though can be seen as annoying and unwelcome, cannot be said to be such as to shock the sense of decency of a woman. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, as ascertained from the contents of the FIR and the statements of the prosecutrix, especially so when the record is silent with respect to use of any criminal force by the petitioner, even prima facie, the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC are not made out.”
The FIR was registered under Sections 354-A and 451 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging that the accused attempted to outrage the modesty of a lady doctor in the library of PGIMS, Rohtak. According to the prosecutrix’s own testimony before the trial court, the accused merely tried to initiate a conversation. He sat beside her and said, “Hey,” followed by remarks such as “I want to talk to you,” and “I saw you on the scooty.” The woman repeatedly responded, “I don’t want to talk to you.” Thereafter, the accused introduced himself as an “Anesthesia Resident” but, upon continued refusal, left the premises. Notably, she further admitted that at no point was any physical force or assault used, and that she does not have any complaint against the petitioner.
The petitioner argued that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the offence under Section 354 IPC. Continuation of proceedings, he contended, would therefore amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Referring to the case Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, where it was emphasized that for Section 354 IPC to apply, the offence must involve use of “criminal force” against a woman, coupled with intent to outrage her modesty.
The Court found that the prosecutrix’s version did not reveal any act of physical contact, use of force, or conduct capable of shocking the sense of decency expected in society. On this basis, the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC were found lacking.
Concluding that further prosecution would be legally untenable, the Court observed that “continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.” Accordingly, the FIR and the order framing charges, along with all subsequent proceedings, were quashed.
Picture Source :