Looking at woman inappropriately does not amount to demanding sexual favours: Karnataka High Court

The act of looking inappropriately at a woman, by itself, is not sufficient to constitute the offence of sexual harassment through the demand of sexual favours, observed the Karnataka High Court recently [Hafeez Khasim v State of Karnataka].

Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings against a man accused of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation.

The Court found that the woman who complained of the sexual harassment had later disowned most of her allegations, leaving only a claim that the accused man had only looked inappropriately at her.

"The allegation of the petitioner having looked at respondent No.2 in an inappropriate manner cannot, by itself, be treated as a demand or request for sexual favours within the meaning of Section 75(1)(ii) of the BNS," the Court observed.

The Court passed the order on a plea filed by the accused man (petitioner) to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly committing sexual harassment under Section 75(1)(ii) (demand or request for sexual favours) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The first information report (FIR) also cited the offences of Section 75(1)(iv)(making sexually coloured remarks), Section 351(2) (criminal intimidation) and Section 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the BNS.

The complaint filed against him initially alleged that the petitioner had sought sexual favours from the complainant and promised her money and benefits in exchange, after she visited his residence to resolve a financial dispute.

However, the complainant later disowned this allegation in a subsequent statment made to the police. In her subsequent statement, the complainant said that the man had only looked at her inappropriately.

Despite this, the police cited Sections 75 (1)(ii) and 351(2) of the BNS in its chargesheet.

The accused man challenged this development before the High Court, which on November 2, allowed his plea.

The Court reasoned that the complainant had disowned her earlier allegations and that the remaining accusation - that the accused had looked at her inappropriately - did not constitute the criminal offences cited in the chargesheet.

"Though the original complaint contains an allegation which, if established, would attract the provision, the subsequent statement of the very complainant, recorded during investigation, specifically negates the essential ingredient of the offence for which the charge-sheet has been filed," the Court noted.

In the original complaint, the complainant had also said that the petitioner threatened physical harm to her if she did not repay the money. However, this allegation was also disowned in her subsequent statement.

The Court acknowledged that mere inconsistencies between the original complaint and the subsequent statement would not always lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings.

However, the Court added that the present criminal case cannot continue since the complainant had disowned a significant part of her allegations, and since the remaining claim (that the accused looked at her inappropriately) did not constitute the alleged offences.

"In the absence of any other material disclosed during investigation to substantiate the alleged demand for sexual favours or the alleged criminal intimidation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 75(1)(ii) and 351(2) of the BNS would serve no useful purpose," the Court concluded, while quashing the case.

Advocates AS Kulkarni and Rakshan MK appeared for the petitioner.

High Court Government Pleader Ranjith Kumar N appeared for the State.

Advocate Mohmmed Ummar Farooq appeared for the complainant.

[Read Order]