The Kerala High Court recently observed that making remarks about a woman's 'body structure' would prima facie amount to insulting her modesty and will constitute the offence of sexual harassment [R Ramachandran Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors.]..The Court was dealing with a case where a man had remarked that a woman's body structure was 'fine'.Justice A Badharudeen opined that such comments would prima facie, amount to sexual harassment and insulting a woman's modesty which are punishable under Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) respectively."In the instant case the allegation of the prosecution is that the accused with intention to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant, by making sexually coloured remarks and overtures...commented that the body structure of the defacto complainant was fine and thereafter..the accused sent messages with sexual overtures to the mobile number of the defacto complainant from his mobile number. Having noticed the facts of the case, it is discernible that the prosecution case is specifically made out, prima facie, to attract the offences alleged (Sections 354A and 509 of the IPC) to be committed," the Court said in its order passed on January 6..The order was passed on a case stemming from a complaint filed by a woman employed as a Senior Assistant at the Kerala State Electricity Board against sub-engineer R Ramachandran Nair (accused) for making inappropriate comments about her body and sending sexually suggestive messages to her mobile phone on several occasions. Specifically, the allegation was that the accused commented that her "body structure was fine".A first information report (FIR) was registered against the accused under Sections 354A(1)(iv) (punishment for making making sexually coloured remarks) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 120 (penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (KP Act).The accused subsequently approached the High Court with the present petition to quash the proceedings against him.He argued that remarking that someone's body structure is nice cannot be considered a sexually coloured remark that could attract the offences alleged against him. .The Court, however, disagreed with this contention and observed that his remarks about the complainant's body would prima facie attract the offences under both Sections 354A and 509 of the IPC.It also noted that there was a history of harassment by the accused both by insulting the complainant publicly and by messaging and calling her privately despite several complaints to superiors.This was also indicative of sexual harassment and this alleged pattern of behaviour would also prima facie attract the offence alleged under the Kerala Police Act, the Court opined..It, therefore, dismissed the plea and refused to quash the proceedings against the accused. .The accused was represented by advocate P Mohamed Sabah.Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth appeared for the State.The complainant was represented by advocate Vinay Vijay Shanker..[Read Order]
The Kerala High Court recently observed that making remarks about a woman's 'body structure' would prima facie amount to insulting her modesty and will constitute the offence of sexual harassment [R Ramachandran Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors.]..The Court was dealing with a case where a man had remarked that a woman's body structure was 'fine'.Justice A Badharudeen opined that such comments would prima facie, amount to sexual harassment and insulting a woman's modesty which are punishable under Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) respectively."In the instant case the allegation of the prosecution is that the accused with intention to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant, by making sexually coloured remarks and overtures...commented that the body structure of the defacto complainant was fine and thereafter..the accused sent messages with sexual overtures to the mobile number of the defacto complainant from his mobile number. Having noticed the facts of the case, it is discernible that the prosecution case is specifically made out, prima facie, to attract the offences alleged (Sections 354A and 509 of the IPC) to be committed," the Court said in its order passed on January 6..The order was passed on a case stemming from a complaint filed by a woman employed as a Senior Assistant at the Kerala State Electricity Board against sub-engineer R Ramachandran Nair (accused) for making inappropriate comments about her body and sending sexually suggestive messages to her mobile phone on several occasions. Specifically, the allegation was that the accused commented that her "body structure was fine".A first information report (FIR) was registered against the accused under Sections 354A(1)(iv) (punishment for making making sexually coloured remarks) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 120 (penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (KP Act).The accused subsequently approached the High Court with the present petition to quash the proceedings against him.He argued that remarking that someone's body structure is nice cannot be considered a sexually coloured remark that could attract the offences alleged against him. .The Court, however, disagreed with this contention and observed that his remarks about the complainant's body would prima facie attract the offences under both Sections 354A and 509 of the IPC.It also noted that there was a history of harassment by the accused both by insulting the complainant publicly and by messaging and calling her privately despite several complaints to superiors.This was also indicative of sexual harassment and this alleged pattern of behaviour would also prima facie attract the offence alleged under the Kerala Police Act, the Court opined..It, therefore, dismissed the plea and refused to quash the proceedings against the accused. .The accused was represented by advocate P Mohamed Sabah.Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth appeared for the State.The complainant was represented by advocate Vinay Vijay Shanker..[Read Order]
