[S.509 IPC] Mere Harassment Or Abuse At Workplace Does Not Constitute Offence Of Outraging Modesty: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that mere harassment and abuse at the workplace would not attract the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 509 of the IPC.

Justice Dr Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: "At the cost of repetitions I am constrained to say that even the complaint does not disclose that the petitioner abused her, it only refers the word harassment. In the statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C, the de facto complaint had only alleged of abusing her that too without detailing the mode and manner of such abuse. Mere harassment at workplace or abusing her at workplace per se may not constitute an offence under section 509 of IPC, unless essential ingredients are fulfilled."

The opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR alleging commission of offence punishable u/s 354/114 of the IPC against four accused persons, including petitioner on the allegation that the accused persons caused harassment to the opposite party no.2/de facto complainant at her workplace.

After completion of the investigation, the investigating agency submitted a charge sheet under section 509 of the IPC.

Counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the present petitioner is innocent and in no way connected with any offence, far less the offences alleged herein.

It was stated that the complainant/opposite party no.2 had joined the employment of M/s. Benett Coleman and Company Ltd. at its Delhi office as a trainee reporter in the year 2015 and thereafter took a transfer to Kolkata in December, 2015 and quit the establishment at the end of July, 2017.

It was submitted that on October 13, 2018, i.e. almost after 1 year and 2 months after she resigned from the establishment, she lodged a complaint against the petitioner, alleging that she was subjected to harassment at her workplace, and that she had also faced severe bullying.

It was argued that she also filed a complaint with the internal complaints committee of her former employer, alleging Sexual Harassment by the petitioner on her in terms of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short Act of 2013), and although the said complaint was time-barred, the said committee proceeded with the same and exonerated the petitioner of all charges.

It was submitted that in order to attract the provision of section 509 of the IPC, the complainant ought to have mentioned that specific details of the words, sounds, or gestures by which the petitioner allegedly insulted her modesty or how and when he intruded upon the complainant's modesty.

It was said that the FIR was lodged with a view to spite the petitioner herein because of a private and personal grudge such as professional rivalry, strenuous relation and also with an oblique motive of implicating the petitioner in long and arduous criminal proceedings, which amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submits that she was not only harassed by the petitioner but was also pushed into depression, since she was publicly abused, humiliated and harassed, causing her mental agony that affected her health.

It was submitted that there are several ingredients in the case diary which establish the offence under section 509 of IPC, and as such, proceedings cannot be quashed without giving the opportunity to adduce evidence during trial.

He also argued that, though the petitioners' counsel stated about the exoneration of the petitioner by the internal committee, the proceeding and the exoneration from the departmental charges under the Act of 2013 before the internal committee will not stand in the way of continuing the criminal proceeding already started under section 509 of the IPC. 

Court's verdict

Court noted that she suffered from severe bullying and harassment at her workplace, aided by the petitioner and his colleagues. In looking at the ingredients of an offence under Section 509 IPC, it was held that there must be an allegation that the action complained of has insulted the modesty of some particular woman or women and not merely of any class or order or section of women, however small.

"Neither in the FIR nor in the materials collected during investigation, including the statements recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C, there is any allegation of making any sound or gesture or exhibiting any object. On the contrary some of the witnesses, who were examined under section 161 of the Cr.P.C have stated before the police that though the petitioner used to create pressure for more work to the officials, but they never find him to misbehave either with the complainant or with other staff," the court observed.

"In the instant case there appears to be no material to establish the intention and knowledge of the petitioner to insult the modesty of the complainant nor any act of petitioner has been described to establish that the petitioner intended to shock the sense of decency of the complainant, being a women," it added.

It was held that merely using the words “harassed” or “abused”, in the overall complaint does not demonstrate the requisite intention or knowledge which can lead to the conclusion that any alleged act of the petitioner constitutes an insult to the complainant's modesty.

Accordingly, the case was quashed.

It was howevever held that in terms of the internal complaints committee, the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is of much higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a departmental proceeding, and in the instant case, as the allegations were found to be inadequate in establishing a charge of harassment, as defined under section 3 of the Act of 2013, the petitioner was exonerated.

Case: X v State of West Bengal

Case No: CRR 2610 of 2019

Click here to read order