The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered in 2019 against the director of a private company for telling an employee to ‘f*** off’ in an email.

Justice Kirti Singh said that though the remark undeniably is uncouth and discourteous, in its ordinary sense, it does not carry any sexual overtone or insinuation directed at the modesty or sexuality of the complainant.

“It is also pertinent that the context of the communication in the present case prima facie arises out of a work related interaction. No doubt the standards of decorum ought to be maintained in every such correspondence, yet at the same time, a solitary instance of an abusive remark, in the absence of any element of sexual intent or pattern of conduct, would not meet the threshold of criminal culpability under the penal provision intended to address gender-based harassment,” the Court ruled.

The company director had been booked under Section 354-A (sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code by Women Police Station in Gurgaon in March 2019.

However, he had soon moved the Court seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR). The proceedings before the trial court were stayed in September 2019.

The Court was told that the petitioner’s company had hired the complainant as a business manager in March 2018.

However, in October 2018, certain issues developed between the employee and the employer. This was after she applied for a medical leave of four days on October 16 in 2018.

On October 17, 2018, the petitioner is stated to have requested her to plan her medical procedure after an event of the organization, which was scheduled for October 20.

Subsequently, multiple e-mails were exchanged between the complainant and the petitioner on the same day, during which certain cuss words were also used. Ultimately, the complainant is stated to have conveyed that she was resigning from the job. Her resignation was accepted on the evening of October 17, 2018.

The complainant and the company then remained in a dispute over notice period and salary dues. The present FIR was registered in February 2019.

In the judgment dated April 18, the Court took note of the delay. It also found that the parties had a disagreement regarding an issue of leave and the objectionable remark was made during that discussion.

The Court acknowledged that the use of the remark was unacceptable. However, it opined that it lacks the essential ingredients of Section 354-A of the IPC.

“Trite to say that where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected fail to disclose the basic ingredients of the offences alleged, the continuation of criminal proceedings would not serve any useful purpose, but would amount to abuse of the process of law,” it added, while quashing the FIR.

The Court quashed the FIR subject to the payment of ₹20,000 to the Poor Patient Welfare Fund of PGIMER, Chandigarh.

Senior Advocate Kunal Dawar and Advocate Jagjot Singh represented the petitioner.

Deputy Advocate General Anmol Malik represented the State of Haryana.

Advocate HS Randhawa appeared for the complainant.