"The law does not punish every act which offends modesty under Section 354-C," the Bombay High Court noted.
While setting aside the First Information Report (FIR) and subsequent criminal proceedings against a senior executive of a private insurance company, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday observed that the allegation against him of unwanted staring at a woman colleague’s chest was not the same as voyeurism, but may amount to misconduct and indecency.
The court, on April 8, passed an order on a criminal application by a man who was booked in 2015 by the Mumbai Police for the offence of voyeurism punishable under Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“The allegation is only that he stared at her chest during office meetings. Unwanted staring, even if accepted as true, is not the same thing as voyeurism within the meaning of Section 354-C. The statute cannot be stretched beyond its plain words,” a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed.
Section 354-C provides punishment to any man who watches or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed. It also punishes the dissemination of such an image.
“The foundation of the offence is therefore intrusion into privacy in a private setting, or recording and circulation of such a private act… The law does not punish every act which offends modesty under Section 354-C,” the judge noted.
“Section 354-C is not a general provision covering every form of offensive gaze or bad behaviour towards a woman,” the court added.
As per the complaint, the accused man, an assistant vice-president at the insurance firm during the 2014 incidents, allegedly insulted the complainant — a deputy sales manager — avoided normal eye contact and instead stared at her chest, and made inappropriate comments.
During a November 2014 meeting, she observed and informed her superior, who raised it with the senior management. The Human Resources Manager allegedly disbelieved, after which the applicant began finding faults with the complainant’s work and insulted her publicly. The firm allegedly issued her a notice, threatened termination, prompting her police complaint in Borivali.
Advocate Amol Patankar, who appeared for the applicant, claimed no prima facie offence under Section 354-C was made, and the applicant was exonerated by the report of the internal complaints committee (ICC) under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act.
Justice Borkar observed that despite an internal finding, “real ground for quashing is the absence of the statutory offence itself.”
“The criminal law is not meant to be used to convert every workplace grievance into an offence of voyeurism. The court has to see the substance of the accusation, not the label given to it,” the judge observed, adding that in the present case, the substance was of alleged staring at the chest, insulting behaviour, and workplace harassment.
“These may, at the highest amount, amount to misconduct, indecency, or some other wrong depending on the facts proved in proper proceedings. But they do not fit into the narrow mould of Section 354-C…”
The judge added that the “complainant may have genuinely felt offended and humiliated, and the workplace atmosphere may indeed have become unpleasant.”
“Yet, criminal prosecution under Section 354-C cannot survive only on the basis of such allegations, unless there is a watching or recording of a woman during a private act or dissemination of such an image. That element is completely absent here. Continuation of the proceedings is unsustainable in law,” the HC held and allowed the plea.
Curated by James Chen
