A Man Commits Sexual Harassment When He Demands Or Requests Sexual Favours From Woman: Kerala HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Accused

The Kerala High Court observed that a man commits an offence of sexual harassment when he demands or requests sexual favours from the woman.

The Court observed thus in a criminal miscellaneous case filed by the accused, seeking to quash the entire proceedings against him.

A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen remarked, “… the allegations would prima facie show the ingredients to attract offence under Section 370(1) of IPC. … Going by Section 354A(1)(ii) of IPC and under Section 75(1)(ii) of BNS, a man commits an offence of sexual harassment, when he demands or requests sexual favours from the woman.”

Advocate Roshin Ipe Joseph represented the petitioner while Senior Public Prosecutor (SPP) Renjit George represented the respondents.

Facts of the Case -

The prosecution alleged the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A(1)(ii) and 370(1)(d) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the petitioner-accused. While seeking quashment of the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioner argued that none of the offences alleged would attract prima facie. As per the prosecution case, the complainant alleged that while she was working as the General Manager in a private company, the accused being the Managing Director, committed the alleged offences in the year 2019. She stated that for attending an official meeting, she reached Chennai and at the time of informing her about the meeting, she requested the accused to arrange a ticket for herself to leave to Mumbai.

Allegedly, instead of booking flight for her on the same day, the accused booked the same for her on the next day. It was further alleged that the accused booked a room in a hotel and compelled her to stay along with him. It was also alleged that he demanded sexual favours from her but she was hesitant to heed the demand and thereby nothing more happened. According to her, the accused further demanded to share his bed and lay along with him in one room, on commenting that what was wrong in it, and the said practice is not uncommon. During her stay at the hotel room, the accused allegedly sent another lady to coerce her presence at the bedroom of the accused.

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “… when a person recruits, transports, harbours, transfers, or receives a person or persons, by using the methods dealt in First to Sixth, in Section 370(1) of IPC for the purpose of exploitation, the same is an offence under Section 370(1) of IPC. Similarly, offence get attracted when a person recruits, transports, harbours, transfers, or receives a person or persons, by using the methods dealt in Section 143(1)(a) to (f) of BNS. Therefore, transporting, transferring or receiving a person by using coercion, by practising fraud or deception for the purpose of exploitation also would cover the offence under Section 370(1) of IPC as well as under Section 143(1) of BNS.” 

The Court in view of the allegations made against the accused, said that the offences under Section 370(1)(b) and 354A(1)(ii) of IPC are made out in the case prima facie warranting trial of the accused for the said offences.

“… dismissal of discharge petition by the Assistant Sessions Court as per Annexure 5 order and confirmation of the same by the Sessions Judge as per Annexure 6 order and frame of charge for the offences under Section 370(1)(b) and under Section 354A(1)(ii) of IPC are perfectly in order”, it added.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and refused to quash the proceedings.

Cause Title- XXXXXXXXXX v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:70646)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Roshin Ipe Joseph and Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar.

Respondents: SPP Renjit George

Click here to read/download the Judgment