Discussion On Body Shape Not Sexual Harassment: Telangana HC Quashes Case U/s 354-A IPC Against Bigg Boss Telugu Organisers
The Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 354-A (ii) of the IPC against Star India Private Limited (Star Maa Division) executives, while observing that discussion on body shape does not attract the offence of sexual harassment.
The Vice President and Assistant Vice President, PRO of Star India Private Limited (Star Maa Division) had filed a petition to quash criminal proceedings in connection with alleged sexual harassment charges under Sections 354-A(ii) and 509 of the IPC. The executives were accused by a journalist in relation to the selection process for the reality television show Big Boss.
A Single Bench of Justice K. Sujana observed, “In the present case, the only statement of 2nd respondent is that the 2nd petitioner asked her as to how she would satisfy his boss, whereas there is no demand for sexual favour. Further, the discussion on body shape does not attract the offence under Section 354-A (ii) of I.P.C and as seen from the record, there is delay of 40 days in giving complaint and no reasons are assigned by the 2nd respondent for the said delay.”
Senior Advocate T. Niranjan Reddy appeared for the petitioners, while APP S. Ganesh represented the respondents.
A journalist (complainant) in 2009 had filed a complaint against the two executives (petitioners) alleging that she had been contacted by a man informing her that she had been selected for the Big Boss 3 show due to her trending status on social media.
The complainant alleged that during one of the meetings regarding the show, the second petitioner allegedly made inappropriate remarks. According to the complainant, he questioned her ability to "satisfy his boss" for entry into Big Boss. Additionally, the complainant alleged that comments about her body shape were made, insinuating that she needed to "impress their boss" to participate in the show.
The petitioners argued that the averments in the charge sheet did not constitute any offence since the complainant's statement was insufficient to proceed against the petitioners.
The High Court took note of the petitioners’ submission that the allegations levelled against them by the complainant were due to non-selection to the Big Boss show and as per the complainant also, there was no physical attack, demand or request for sexual favour or making sexual colour marks by the petitioners.
“Further, the averments in the complaint are that one of the accused stated that 2nd respondent has to satisfy his boss but there is no averment to show that the 2nd respondent has to satisfy the boss sexually. Therefore, Section 354-A (ii) does not attract to the petitioners and there are no further averments to constitute the offence under Section 509 of I.P.C.,” the Court observed.
The Court observed that the complaint was filed only after the complainant came to know that she was not selected for the Big Boss show.
“Viewed from any angle the averments do not constitute any of the offences and further there is unexplained delay of 39 days in giving complaint, even though the 2nd respondent is a journalist, which fortifies the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that 2nd respondent gave complaint only after she came to know that she is not selected to Big Boss show,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that “continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Prasadam Raghu & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate T. Niranjan Reddy; Advocate R. Sushanth Reddy
Respondents: APP S. Ganesh
