'Sexual Harassment' By A Woman Against Another Woman Not An Offence U/S 354A IPC: Kerala High Court
|The Kerala High Court quashed an FIR registered against two women under Section 354A of the IPC while observing that the provision for sexual harassment will not apply when the alleged acts are done by a woman against another woman.
The Court explained that in order to attract the offence under Section 354A of IPC, the alleged acts defined under Section 354A(1), (2) and (3), should be the volition of "a man".
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “It has to be held that Section 354A of IPC would not apply when the overt acts dealt therein was done by a woman against another woman/women. If so, the allegation of prosecution that the petitioners herein committed offence punishable under Section 354A of IPC is, prima facie, not sustainable and the proceedings for said offence is liable to the quashed.”
Advocate V.G. Arun appeared for the petitioner, while PP MP Prasanth represented the respondents.
An FIR was registered against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 354A and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, the mother and sister of the primary accused (the complainant's husband), subjected the complainant to cruelty and molestation, by demanding money and flat.
The complainant alleged that the petitioner, during her stay at their residence following her marriage in 2013, made attempts to starve her, detain her in a room, and demand additional money. She also alleged that the petitioners forced her to send money to them while she was abroad and even attempted to harm her by manipulating a gas stove.
Regarding the charges under Section 354A of the IPC, which deals with sexual harassment, the Court pointed out that this Section was applicable only to men. The Court explained that legislature’s intent was clear in its language, which diligently uses the term “a man” and not any person.
“In order to attract offence under Section 354A of IPC, the overt acts dealt under Section 354A(1), (2) and (3), should be the volition of "a man". So the legislature diligently used the term `a man' instead of `any person' In the statutory provision and the legislative intent is to exclude woman/women from the purview of Section 354A of IPC,” the Court remarked.
After evaluating the prosecution’s allegations, the Court held that “On evaluation of the prosecution allegations, it could not be held that only general and sweeping allegations raised against the petitioners herein and there are specific allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, it could not be held that the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is not made out against the petitioners, prima facie, so as to quash the proceedings for the said offence also.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the quashing of the FIR under Section 354A of the IPC, while disallowing the prayer to quash the entire proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 of the IPC.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition in part.
Cause Title: X v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:62605)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates V.G. Arun, V.Jaya Ragi, R.Harikrishnan (Kambisseril), Neeraj Narayan, Avaneeth S.R. and Bharath Vijayan U.R.
Respondents: PP MP Prasanth