The act of touching hands of a colleague is not sufficient to constitute the offence of outraging the modesty of women under section 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with the intention to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code, held the Bombay High Court.
In the present matter, the headmaster of the school was accused to have allegedly outraged the modesty of an assistant teacher who was working in the same school. The medical bills and leave allowance bills of the assistant teacher were kept on hold by the school authorities.
On the day of the incident, the accused entered the classroom where the complainant was teaching. According to the allegations made by the complainant, the accused came near her and while touching her hands disclosed that her pending bills will be cleared. He then asked her not to complain against him to the trustees of the school. The accused also threatened the complainant saying, no one can harm him as his relatives were on high posts. However, upon being threatened by the accused, the complainant folded her hands to apologize to the accused. Thereafter, the accused touched her hands and pressed them.
Later, the complainant filed an FIR to which the accused filed an application for quashing of the said proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The advocate of the accused in his submissions stated that all the allegations against the accused are false, baseless and vexatious. He stated that the FIR was not lodged within the appropriate period and submitted that the complainant had a habit of disobeying the orders as she remained absent most of the time without giving an application for leave. She further asked to put her signature on the muster roll without taking permission from the higher authority. In this regard, a memo was issued to the complainant for her negligent conduct. Further, he stated that the accused as the headmaster of the school always tried to make her understand to behave properly but she always threatened him saying, she will file a case of sexual harassment against the accused.
The advocate for the complainant opposed the arguments of the accused and stated that the act of accused as he holds the hands of the complainant and pressed them with a wrong intention holds him guilty for the offence of outraging the modesty of the complainant.
The Court has observed that the accused had not used any criminal force against the complainant during the incident. It has further stated that the act of touching the hands of a fellow woman- teacher while disclosing her that “ her bills would be made cleared and she should not make any complaint to Trustees of the School” is not sufficient to conclude the offence of outraging the modesty as there was no wrongful intention on the part of the accused while touching the hands of the complainant.
658+ Lawyers are online 
.jpg)
.jpg)
