Section 354A IPC Not Attracted On Alleged Sexual Harassment Of A Woman By Another Woman: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated by a woman under Section 354A of the IPC alleging sexual harassment by her sister-in-law and mother-in-law.The sister-in-law (3rd accused) and mother-in-law (4th accused) of the de facto complainant had approached the High Court seeking to quash the offences alleged against them under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of...
The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated by a woman under Section 354A of the IPC alleging sexual harassment by her sister-in-law and mother-in-law.
The sister-in-law (3rd accused) and mother-in-law (4th accused) of the de facto complainant had approached the High Court seeking to quash the offences alleged against them under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 354A (sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
Justice A. Badharudeen ruled that when the legislature has used the term 'any man' and not 'any person' under Section 354A of the IPC, overt acts done by women cannot attract the said offence.
“Thus 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. If so, 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.”
As per the prosecution case, the petitioner ladies subjected the de facto complainant who is from another community to cruelty and molestation in demand of money and a flat. It was alleged that the de facto complainant was detained in a room and made to starve. The 1st accused is the husband and 2nd accused is the father-in-law of the de facto complainant.
The Counsel for Petitioners argued that they cannot be made liable for the offence of sexual harassment under Section 354A, since they are ladies. It was also submitted that there are only vague allegations made against them which is insufficient to proceed against them. Relying upon Apex Court decisions, it was also argued that Section 498A of the IPC is often misused to file cases against relatives of the husband.
The Court found that there are many specific allegations of cruelty raised by the de facto complainant against the sister-in-law and mother-in-law. It stated that allegations raised against the accused cannot be said to be general and vague. The Court thus did not quash the proceedings under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC.
It quashed the proceedings against the sister-in-law and mother-in-law under Section 354A of the IPC and allowed the petitions in part.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
Case Title: Nishin Hussain v State of Kerala
Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 7541 OF 2023