'Convince customer as you convince husband’ advice does not amount to offence of outraging modesty: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has recently ruled that a bank manager’s advice to a female subordinate that she should “convince the customer as she convinces her husband”, though disgraceful, does not amount to the criminal offence of outraging a woman's modesty [Satyaswarup Meshram v State of Maharashtra]..This is particularly when the purpose of such a conversation was to ensure that her performance in official duties improved, the Court explained. A division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Pravin Patil, therefore, quashed the charge sheet filed against Satyaswarup Haridas Meshram, the then Assistant General Manager at the State Bank of India (SBI), Bhandara, observing that there was no intention on his part to insult the modesty of the complainant. The Court stated that the remark, made during a staff performance meeting, lacked the requisite intent to insult her modesty. “Considering the purpose of the meeting dated 11/08/2021 and reasons to utter such words during the meeting, [it] do[es] not show any intention of the applicant to insult the modesty of the complainant. Particularly, when the whole object and purpose of such a conversation of the applicant with the complainant was to see that her performance should be improved while performing her official duties," the Court said. .The complainant, a Senior Clerk at SBI, Bhandara, had alleged that the accused, Assistant General Manager Satyaswarup Haridas Meshram, made the offending remark during a review meeting on August 11, 2021.She later lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on November 14, 2022, more than a year after the incident. The FIR also cited two other dates—August 28 and September 16, 2022—on which the complainant alleged further inappropriate behaviour on the bank manager's part..Mesharam's counsel argued that the essential elements of Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman, were not met in this case. He contended that there was no intention to outrage the complainant's modesty and that the remark was made in the context of job performance. On the other hand, the complainant's counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the remark was made deliberately and was sufficient to attract criminal liability under Section 509, IPC..The High Court, however, found no material to establish the requisite intent or knowledge under Section 509. The Court concluded that while the remarks made by the accused were disgraceful, no criminal offence was attracted. “After going through the narration of such incidences, it appears that whatever words uttered by the applicant were for the better administration of the Bank, though said words can be said to be at the most disgraceful," the Court's April 23 ruling said. The Court proceeded to quash the case, observing that the continuance of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law."In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that even if the allegations made in the First Information Report are taken on its face value, no offense constitutes as alleged under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code," the Court held. .Advocate AP Modak appeared for the accused SBI Manager.Additional Public Prosecutor Mayuri Deshmukh appeared for the State. Advocate Ayushi Dangre appeared for the complainant..[Read Order]