Facts of the Case:

The petitioner/accused filed a criminal revision application under Sections 482 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings related to Netaji Nagar Police Station under Sections 354A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore. The case stems from a complaint by the second respondent, alleging that X (principal accused) and the petitioner attempted to torture the complainant’s mother. X allegedly tried to molest the complainant while she was changing her dress, and the petitioner, being X’s daughter, allegedly instigated and tortured the complainant’s mother. The petitioner claims innocence and argues that there is no sufficient material to proceed against her.

Contention of the Petitioner:

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 354A IPC is inapplicable to a female accused, as it specifically mentions “a man.” They contended that no specific or particular allegation was made against the petitioner justifying the charge under Section 354A IPC, and there are material contradictions in the witness statements. The petitioner is being implicated due to her relationship with the principal accused, and the proceedings constitute an abuse of process.

Contention of the Respondent:

The State’s counsel argued that the FIR and subsequent investigation established a prima facie case against the petitioner under Sections 354A/506/34 IPC. The petitioner, in furtherance of common intention with the principal accused, allegedly threatened the complainant and her mother with dire consequences. Sufficient material supports the charges, and the petition should be dismissed.

Court’s Observation:

The court observed that the FIR and statements do not attribute any specific role to the petitioner in the alleged offenses. The allegations against her are general and lack particular details. The court noted that Section 354A IPC cannot apply to a female accused, as it specifically refers to “a man.” The evidence collected does not support the charges against the petitioner, and the allegations appear to be motivated by personal grudge.

The Court perused Section 354A that says,“Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment–(1) A man committing any of the following acts–” and held that “it can be safely accepted that a female cannot be an accused under Section 354A of the IPC as is evident from very terminology as used in the said enactment. This offence is gender specific and only a male can be prosecuted under this offence. A female accused will not be covered under the mischief of this Section as a result of the specific words “a man” used in the Section 354A sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of the IPC. Accordingly, the allegation of an offence punishable under Section 354A of IPC is not applicable against the present petitioner.”

Court’s Decision:

The court concluded that the charges against the petitioner are not supported by sufficient material and that the prosecution under Section 354A IPC is impermissible against a female accused. Consequently, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent the abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

Written by Deeksha Rai