A man initiating a conversation with a woman but not persisting with the same after being turned down by her, will not attract the offence of outraging the modesty of woman under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held.
Justice Kirti Singh said that such an act does not shock the sense of decency of a woman though it could be seen as annoying or unwelcome.
“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,” the Court said while quashing a Section 354 case against a man.
The case pertained to an incident that had taken place at a library of Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak.
On July 22, 2020, the accused had greeted a medical student and tried to initiate a conversation but on refusal, left the premises.
He was later booked under Section 354 of IPC on the woman's complaint.
The counsel representing the accused submitted that he himself was pursuing a medical course from a Russian university, and along with his friend had visited the library of PGIMS Rotak. It was argued that there was no case of assault or use of criminal force against the victim.
The Court agreed with the submission, noting that the complainant herself has stated that he had only tried to initiate a conversation but upon her refusal to talk, he left the premises.
It, thus, found that the offence was not made out and quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered by Rohtak police.
“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 said.
Advocate Aman Pal represented the petitioner.
Additional Advocate General Brijesh Sharma represented the State of Haryana.
Advocate Amit Rao represented the complainant.