In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court determined Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It pertains to sexual harassment, cannot be applied against women. The decision was made by a single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta. They noted that the provision explicitly begins with the term “a man.”
Justice Gupta stated, “It can be safely accepted that a female cannot be an accused under Section 354A of the IPC. As is evident from very terminology as used in the said enactment. This offence is gender specific and only a male can be prosecuted under this offence. A female accused will not be covered under the mischief of this Section. As a result of the specific words ‘a man’ used in the Section 354A sub-sections (1), (2), and (3) of the IPC.”
Background:
The case emerged from a criminal revisional application filed by the petitioners under Section 482. It was read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash proceedings against them. On September 15, 2018, a complaint was lodged by the second respondent against four individuals. This is including the petitioner, alleging harassment and attempted molestation.
According to the complaint, Samir Pandit, one of the accused and the biological father of the petitioner, entered the complainant’s room while she was changing and attempted to molest her. Additionally, the complaint alleged that the petitioner, along with others, instigated and tortured the complainant’s mother.
Despite these allegations, the petitioner argued that there was no substantial evidence against her in the charge sheet and that Section 354A IPC, being specific to male perpetrators, could not apply to her.
Court’s Findings:
The Court reviewed the evidence and found no specific allegations against the petitioner under Sections 354A/506/34 of the IPC. Justice Gupta concluded that the allegations were solely against Samir Pandit and not the petitioner. The Court noted that the accusations seemed to be made with an ulterior motive and personal grudge against the petitioner.
Furthermore, the Court accepted the petitioner’s argument that a woman cannot be charged under Section 354A IPC by design, leading to the quashing of proceedings against her.
This ruling reinforces the gender-specific nature of Section 354A of the IPC and clarifies its application in legal proceedings.
