The Madras High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice RN Manjula refused to quash a sexual harassment case registered against a man under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 saying that even if such harassment had not taken place at a public spot, it would still constitute an offence under the IPC. (MR Sivaramakrishnan v State).
The bench while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, observed, “Even for the sake of argument, if it is understood that in order to punish the accused for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the occurrence ought to have occurred in a public place, still the harassment of a woman is an offence and the accused can be punished under Section 354 IPC.”
Facts of the case
This Criminal Original Petition was filed, seeking to call for the records pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai and quash the proceedings.
As per the case of the prosecution, the de-facto complainant reached her house; at 9.00 p.m, her mother and sister came home; the accused, who is residing in the adjacent house came out and parked his bike in such a manner that it would block the exit from the de-facto complainant's house; when the de-facto complainant and her sister came out of the house and tried to find a way, the accused came and started abusing them for having touched his bike; he abused the de- facto complainant in a filthy language and threatened that she should not proceed with the pending civil case filed by her; the driver of the de-facto complainant's sister who heard the noise came for their rescue and he was also threatened by the petitioner; the occurrence was recorded in the i-pad and the recordings were also submitted along with the complaint; on the above said complaint, the case was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002.
Contention of the Parties
The petitioner asserted that the accused offence did not occur in a public area, but rather inside the home. He said that because Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 required the offence to be committed in a “public place,” it would not be possible to prove it. According to the respondent’s statement, neither the petitioner nor the de facto complainant’s home was where the incident occurred; rather, it happened on a public walkway.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench at the very outset observed, "Even for the sake of argument, if it is understood that in order to punish the accused for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the occurrence ought to have occurred in a public place, still the harassment of a woman is an offence and the accused can be punished under Section 354 IPC. Because, the Court is not precluded to punish the accused for any other lesser offence, if the offence is cognizable in nature."
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 reads as under,
“4. Penalty of (harassment of woman) – whoever commits or participates in or abets (harassment of woman) in or within the precincts of any educational institution, temple or other place of worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema theatre, park, beach, place of festival, public service vehicle or vessel or any other place shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than thousand rupees".
Even according to the statement of the 2nd respondent, the occurrence had taken place at a common pathway and not inside the house of either the petitioner or the de-facto complainant. Only if the witnesses are examined and the accused is put to trial, the exact location in which the occurrence had taken place can come to light.
Since there are sufficient materials available on record to charge the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and the charges have also been framed, I feel this is not an appropriate stage where the records should be called for and the proceedings should be quashed. The petitioner is at liberty to raise the points now submitted by him as his defence during the trial.
The court observed that except the technical interpretation, no challenge has been made out by the petitioner. Further, even if the offence was not committed in the public place, it would still attract offences as contemplated under the IPC.
In view of the above stated reasons, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
