Initiating Unwelcome Conversation With Woman Is 'Annoying' But Does Not Amount To Outraging Her Modesty: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that merely attempting to initiate an unwelcome conversation with a woman—though "annoying"—does not, by itself, constitute the criminal offence of outraging her modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Kirti Singh noted that it is the own admission of the prosecutrix as can be seen from a bare of her testimony before the learned trial Court, that the petitioner only tried initiating a conversation with her and upon her refusal to talk, the petitioner left the premises.

"To the considered mind of this Court, the said act, though can be seen as annoying and unwelcome, cannot be said to be such as to shock the sense of decency of a woman. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, as ascertained from the contents of the FIR and the statements of the prosecutrix, especially so when the record is silent with respect to use of any criminal force by the petitioner, even prima facie, the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC are not made out," the Court observed.

These observations were made while quashing the FIR lodged under Sections 354-A and 451 of IPC for allegedly outraging the modesty of a lady doctor.

As per the prosecutrix's testimony , the accused came and sat beside her in the PGIMS Rohtak's library and said "Hey" and she just looked at him angrily and resumed reading. Then he said, "I want to talk to you." she responded, "I don't want to talk to you." Then he said, "I saw you on the scooty." Again, she replied, "I don't want to talk to you." Despite that, he kept trying to initiate conversation and said, "He is Anesthesia Resident." she again said, "I don't want to talk to you." Thereafter, he left. 

It was submitted that at no point in time were the allegations of assault or use of criminal force upon the prosecutrix against the petitioner levelled. Rather, the prosecutrix in her testimony before the learned trial Court stated that she does not have any complaint against the petitioner.

Hence, the essentials constituting an offence under Section 354 IPC not having been made out even prima facie against the petitioner, continuation of criminal proceedings against him would tantamount to the abuse of process of law, added the petitioner.

After hearing the submissions, Reliance was placed upon Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and another to underscore that for a charge under Section 354 IPC to sustain, the offence must be committed against a woman and criminal force must be applied against her; and such application of force must be with the intent to outrage her modesty.

Highlighting the present facts of the case, the Court opined that even prima facie, the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC are not made out.

In the light of the above, the Court said, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the instant petition was allowed. Present FIR , registered at Police Station PGIMS Rohtak, District Rohtak, under Sections 354-A and 451 of IPC and the impugned order of framing of charges along with subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed and set aside.

Mr Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Title: XXXXX v. XXXX

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 386

This order falls under the restricted category as per the High Court rules and, therefore, cannot be uploaded.