‘Physical contact during resistance is not an unwelcome sexual advance’: Kerala HC quashes FIR

The Kerala High Court recently quashed a first information report (FIR) against Dr PK Baby, director of youth welfare and union member at Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), accused of sexually harassed a student during a youth festival. .

The court found that the physical contact that occurred during the incident did not constitute an unwelcome or explicit sexual advance, but rather was part of a resistance effort to maintain discipline.

Justice A. Badharudeen, who presided over the court, was hearing a case arising out of an incident that took place on March 1, 2024, during the ‘Sargam’ youth festival in CUSAT. The complainant, a law student and stage host, alleged that after the program ended at 9 p.m., she tried to retrieve an oil lamp from the stage along with another student, Sharan. Dr Baby (petitioner) allegedly stopped her, became agitated and forcibly grabbed her, touching her breast twice despite her objections. The complainant further alleged that Dr. Baby threatened her, saying that if she reported the incident, her studies would be disrupted. The FIR charged Dr Baby under sections 354 (assault or criminal violence to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A(1) (sexual harassment) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code ( CPI).

Advocate Salim VS, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the FIR was filed 127 days after the alleged incident, suggesting that the delay indicated that the complaint was filed with malicious intent. It was further highlighted that the university had implemented strict guidelines following a fatal stampede at an event in 2023. These guidelines, approved by the university union, required that all events ends at 9 p.m., and the petitioner was responsible for ensuring their observance during the festival. . It was also contended that the plaintiff attempted to circumvent these rules by entering the auditorium after the designated time, which resulted in an altercation when the plaintiff prevented her from entering. The petitioner argued that any physical contact was incidental and resulted from his efforts to enforce the guidelines, not an act of intentional harassment.

Conversely, the complainant, represented by Attorney General Prasanth (for the State) and Advocate Asif MA, contended that the petitioner’s actions were intentional and amounted to sexual harassment and intimidation. The prosecution, supported by the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee investigation, contended that the matter deserved a thorough investigation to find out the truth and, therefore, the FIR should not be quashed at this stage.

The court, after reviewing the facts, found that the altercation appeared to be the result of Dr. Baby’s efforts to enforce discipline in accordance with university guidelines, and that there was no evidence to suggest intent to outrage the modesty of the complainant or to engage in sexual harassment.

Further, the court observed that the essential elements required to constitute offenses under Sections 354 and 354A(1) of the IPC were not made out. “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 in the context of such resistance cannot be considered contact that arouses unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures,” the court noted.

The court also took into account the significant delay in filing the FIR and said, “In view of the case, the FIR was registered 4 months and 6 days after 3 months and 26 days after the complaint was lodged with of the vice-chancellor, because after the fact, he lacks good faith. »

Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dismiss the case. However, the court warned the petitioner against any retaliatory measures that might hamper the complainant’s studies and noted that such actions would be treated with due seriousness.