The Calcutta High Court recently held that Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to sexual harassment, cannot be applied to women as it specifically begins with “a man.” Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta emphasized that the provision is gender-specific and only men can be prosecuted under it.
The Calcutta High Court recently ruled that Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), addressing sexual harassment, is gender-specific and does not apply to women. The case, presided over by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, involved allegations against Samir Pandit and his daughter, the petitioner. The complainant, referred to as opposite party No. 2, accused them of harassing her mother. This decision highlights the importance of evidence-based legal proceedings and proper investigation, as well as the gender-specific application of Section 354A, which begins with the term “a man.”
Case Overview and Allegations:
On 15th September 2018, the complainant (opposite party No. 2) filed a complaint against Samir Pandit and his daughter, the petitioner. The allegations included:
- Against Samir Pandit: He allegedly entered the complainant’s room while she was changing and attempted to molest her.
- Against the Petitioner: The petitioner, being Samir Pandit’s daughter, was accused of instigating and torturing the complainant’s mother along with others.
The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings through a criminal revisional application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Legal Arguments and Proceedings:
Petitioner’s Defense
- The petitioner argued that Section 354A cannot apply to a female accused as the section specifically refers to “a man.”
- The petitioner claimed no involvement in the alleged offences and argued that the charge sheet was filed without proper investigation.
Prosecution’s Stand
- The FIR named the petitioner and others, alleging they threatened the complainant and her mother with dire consequences.
- Counsel for the state argued that the petitioner was involved in the alleged offence in furtherance of common intention with Samir Pandit.
Court’s Examination and Findings:
- Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta emphasized the gender-specific nature of Section 354A, stating, “it can be safely accepted that a female cannot be an accused under Section 354A of the IPC as is evident from the very terminology used in the said enactment.”
- The court found no specific role attributed to the petitioner based on the evidence collected during the investigation.
- The court determined that the allegations against the petitioner were made with an ulterior motive, driven by personal grudge.
- The court acknowledged that the specific allegations of molestation were directed at Samir Pandit, not the petitioner.
Court’s Decision and Legal Implications:
- The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, stating that “by design, a woman can’t be implicated as an accused in a case under Section 354A of the IPC.”
- The ruling reinforces that Section 354A of the IPC applies only to men.
- The decision highlights the necessity of accurate and thorough investigations before filing charge sheets.
- The court stressed the importance of evidence-based accusations to ensure justice is served and to protect individuals from wrongful accusations driven by ulterior motives.
