Staring at co-worker's chest is morally wrong but not voyeurism under IPC: Bombay High Court

Staring at a woman colleague’s chest in an office setting, though offensive, does not amount to the offence of voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Bombay High Court recently held [Abhijit Baswant Nigudkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]..Thus, Justice Amit Borkar quashed a first information report (FIR) against a Max Life Insurance employee, one Abhijit Nigudkar, who was booked for voyeurism. “Unwanted staring, even if accepted as true, is not the same thing as voyeurism within the meaning of Section 354C. The statute cannot be stretched beyond its plain words,” Justice Borkar said in the order passed on April 8..The complainant, Nigudkar’s subordinate, alleged that he avoided normal eye contact, stared at her chest during meetings, made inappropriate remarks and later began publicly faulting her work after she complained to the company..According to the judge’s interpretation, Section 354C of the IPC addresses the act of watching or recording a woman during a "private act" when she has a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes situations where her intimate parts are exposed, she is using a lavatory or is engaged in a sexual act not normally performed in public.Thus, the act of staring at chest will not fall within the scope of the definition, the Court held..Unwanted staring, even if accepted as true, is not the same thing as voyeurism within the meaning of Section 354C.Bombay High Court.He stressed that the offence requires a clear element of intrusion into bodily privacy in an intimate or secluded setting.The judge noted that the FIR did not allege that the applicant watched the complainant during any private act, captured any such image or observed her in a situation where she would usually expect not to be seen. “Mere offensive conduct in an office environment, even if morally wrong, cannot be brought inside this provision unless the statutory conditions are shown,” the Court said. The judge added that Section 354-C is not a general provision covering every form of offensive gaze or bad behaviour towards a woman..The Court noted that Max Life Insurance had constituted an Internal Complaints Committee under Vishaka guidelines and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which ultimately exonerated Nigudkar. While the Court said the internal report focused on service issues, it ultimately ruled that the case was being quashed because the statutory offence itself was absent and continuing it would constitute an abuse of process..Advocates Amol Patankar and Neil Chandiwala appeared for Nigudkar.Additional public prosecutor Yogesh Nakhwa appeared for the State. Advocate Ajinkya Udane appeared for the complainant. [Read Order]