Mere touching will not attract outraging modesty offence under IPC: Gauhati High Court grants relief to IIT professor

The Gauhati High Court has held that "mere touching" does not amount to the use of force to constitute an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with assault or the use of criminal force intended to outrage a woman’s modesty [VK v. State of Assam & Anr.]..Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma made the observation while quashing a sexual harassment case against an IIT professor accused of inappropriately holding the hand of the complainant.The Court closely examined the legal meaning of “force” under Section 349 of the IPC, which requires causing movement, restraint, or physical control over a person’s body. It held that mere physical contact, alone, is not enough to meet this legal standard.“Mere touching would not or could not be brought in within the ambit of the definition of force as defined under Section 349 IPC,” the Court stated..The Court also noted that under criminal law, “assault” refers to gestures or actions that make a person fear immediate physical harm. Once physical contact takes place, it must still amount to criminal force for a case to fall under Section 354.The Court concluded that no such assault was alleged to have been committed by the accused professor to book him under Section 354. “As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, as reflected in the FIR as well as in the statement of the victim... the allegation is that the petitioner held the hand of the complainant/victim. No motion, change of motion or cessation of motion was caused to the person of the complainant/victim. Further, there is nothing in the contents of the FIR or the statement of the victim attributing any act on the part of the petitioner as would qualify as a gesture or preparation so, as to be termed as an assault," it observed. .The case arose from a complaint by a woman entrepreneur from Ahmedabad who had sought mentorship from a professor at IIT Guwahati for her startup. She alleged that in 2022, during a car journey while he was dropping her at a friend’s home in Guwahati, he made comments she found uncomfortable, and repeatedly held her hand while looking at her palm. He is also alleged to have stopped in front of a temple and asked her to join her hands to offer prayers before beginning their journey..Following this, police registered a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 354 IPC, and a charge sheet was filed after investigation.Acting on the complaint, a magistrate court took cognisance of the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.The professor then moved the Gauhati High Court, seeking to have the criminal proceedings quashed..Beyond the legal definitions, the High Court also examined the background of the dispute. The Court recorded that the complainant had earlier raised the same allegations in a departmental inquiry. That inquiry was conducted with participation from both sides and concluded with the allegations being found baseless. The criminal complaint was filed around two and a half months after the inquiry had ended.“It does prima facie appear that due to the unfavourable result in the departmental proceedings, the complainant has sought to lodge the FIR after two and a half months thereafter with a view to wreck vengeance upon the petitioner which itself is an abuse of the process of the Court,” held the Court..The Court concluded that no offence under Section 354 IPC was made out on the materials placed before the court and quashed the FIR, the charge sheet, and the pending trial before the magistrate..Senior Advocate Z Kamar appeared for the petitioner (IIT professor).The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor DP Goswami.Legal Aid Counsel D Borpujari appeared for the complainant..[Read Judgement].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.