Kerala HC quashes FIR against teacher U/S 354, 354A(1) IPC

A single judge bench composed of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the petitioner was trying to apply restrictions to strictly maintain discipline during the Youth Festival and it cannot be held that he intended to outrage the modesty or sexually harass the de facto complainant.

“Summarizing the factual matrix of this case, it emerges that when the de facto complainant attempted to head towards the auditorium under the pretext of taking an oil lamp, after completing the program, he exceeded the external time limit set at 9 p.m. hours, according to guidelines. , in the course of strict observance of discipline, the petitioner objected and there was an altercation in the course of conduct and resistance. In such a situation, it cannot be concluded, prima facie, that the applicant intended to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant in any way or to sexually harass her. That aside, physical contact as part of such resistance could not be considered that which provoked explicit and unwelcome sexual overtures. Failure to file a complaint in this regard, at least to university authorities, soon after the event would show that the allegations contained in the complaint and in the FIS are after-the-fact events. Considering the facts in this case from the above point of view, none of the offenses are made out, prima facie.

The allegation was that the petitioner got angry and forcefully groped the chest of the de facto complainant who was a stage organizer at the Sargam Youth Festival, 2024 at CUSAT. It was alleged that the de facto complainant became mentally depressed and felt ashamed. She also alleged that the petitioner threatened her not to disclose this to anyone, claiming that her studies would be compromised if she did so.

He is therefore accused of having committed offenses punishable under sections 354 (assault or criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman), 354A(1) (sexual harassment) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the CPI.

The petitioner said that he and other faculties had received strict instructions from the University to conclude the Youth Festival before 9 p.m. He maintained that to avoid any untoward incident this year during the Youth Festival, the University had decided to strictly implement the University guidelines; These were put in place after a stampede last year during an annual technical festival in which four people were killed, prompting the government to issue instructions to institutions to hold demonstrations. festivals. He alleged that due to strict enforcement of restrictions at the Youth Festival, the University Union had become hostile to the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner prevented the de facto complainant and a boy from entering the auditorium at night in order to take an oil lamp, which they refused and attempted to forcefully enter the auditorium. It was alleged that during the altercation, the hand of the petitioner touched the body of the de facto complainant. The petitioner claimed that there were also other witnesses to the above-mentioned incident.

The petitioner said the complaint was filed against him for political reasons and with the aim of causing trouble for him. He argued that there was a delay of more than 3 months in filing the complaint with the vice-chancellor and more than 4 months in filing the FIR. He maintained that the FIR was lodged only because he strictly enforced discipline during the Youth Festival.

The court observed that the most essential element to justify an offense under Section 354 of the IPC is assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage or knowing that It is likely that he will thus outrage his modesty. It also said that to give rise to an offense under Section 354 A(1) of the IPC, there must be unwelcome and sexual overtures of physical contact and advances, request or demand for sexual favors, exhibition of pornography against the wishes of women and remarks with sexual connotations.

Taking note of the factual matrix, the court said that it was evident that the petitioner was trying to prevent the de facto complainant from entering the auditorium for strict enforcement of discipline and that the altercation was a result of the same.

He then declared: “In view of the matter, the FIR registered after 4 months and 6 days after 3 months and 26 days after the complaint was lodged with the Vice-Chancellor, lacks bona fides and the prayer to quash the FIR is liable to succeed.”

The High Court subsequently quashed the FIR and declared that the petitioner should not in any way hinder the studies of the de facto complainant.

Case Title: Dr PK Baby v State of Kerala

Counsel for the petitioner: Lawyers Salim VS, AMFousi, ABAjin, H.Nujumudeen

Counsel for the respondents: Advocate Asif MA, Attorney General MP Prasanth

File number: CRL.MC NO. 6103 FROM 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 629

Click here to download the order