Facts of the Case

The complainant, a Senior Assistant at KSEB Ltd., alleged that the petitioner, who worked as a Sub Engineer, made inappropriate and sexually colored remarks about her “body structure,” describing it as “fine.” Additionally, the petitioner sent her messages containing sexual overtures on multiple occasions, despite her objections.

The complainant highlighted a history of harassment by the petitioner, stating that during 2013, he had insulted her using vulgar language in public forums at the workplace. She lodged complaints against him at various times, leading to his transfer in 2013. Despite these measures, the accused continued his behavior, sending repeated messages even from alternate phone numbers.

The complainant further alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with her at a retirement function and continued sending vulgar text messages. These incidents led to the registration of the case under the aforementioned sections of IPC and KP Act.

Contention of the Petitioner

The petitioner vehemently argued that the allegations did not satisfy the legal requirements to constitute offenses under Sections 354A(1)(iv) and 509 of IPC or Section 120 of the KP Act. He claimed that his remarks were taken out of context and did not amount to “sexually colored remarks” as defined under the law.

The petitioner also contended that the accusations were motivated by personal animosity and were an abuse of legal process. He sought quashing of the FIR and the final report, arguing that the allegations lacked prima facie merit and did not establish any criminal liability.

Contention of the Respondent

The prosecution, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the petitioner’s plea for quashing the proceedings. The complainant’s counsel emphasized that the accused’s actions constituted a pattern of harassment, including sexually colored remarks and intrusive behavior, which directly insulted the complainant’s modesty.

The prosecution further relied on multiple complaints lodged by the complainant, including documentary evidence and screenshots of vulgar messages sent by the petitioner. It argued that the cumulative conduct of the petitioner was sufficient to attract the ingredients of the offenses under IPC and KP Act.

Court’s Observations

Justice A. Badharudeen analyzed the elements of Sections 354A(1)(iv) and 509 of IPC and Section 120 of the KP Act (Kerala Police Act, 2011) in light of the allegations.

The Court emphasized that Section 509 IPC aims to penalize acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Referring to prior judgments, the Court noted that modesty encompasses “womanly propriety of behavior” and that any act, gesture, or utterance intended to intrude upon a woman’s privacy or insult her dignity constitutes an offense under this section.

Regarding Section 354A(1)(iv), the Court highlighted that making sexually colored remarks qualifies as sexual harassment. The Court found that the petitioner’s remarks and messages demonstrated an intent to demean the complainant’s dignity and modesty, making the allegations prima facie sufficient to attract this section.

Under Section 120 of the KP Act, the Court noted that repeated and undesirable communications that cause annoyance or discomfort constitute a punishable offense. The petitioner’s actions of sending repeated messages, even after being blocked, fell squarely within the ambit of this section.

The Court further observed that there was no evidence suggesting that the criminal proceedings were initiated with mala fide intentions or ulterior motives.

Court’s Order

Based on its findings, the Court dismissed the petition, refusing to quash the criminal proceedings. The Court held that the prosecution’s allegations were supported by prima facie evidence, and the petitioner’s actions, if proven, would attract the offenses under Sections 354A(1)(iv), 509 IPC, and Section 120 of the KP Act.

The Court emphasized the need to address workplace harassment and protect the dignity of women employees. It concluded that quashing the proceedings at this stage would undermine the judicial process and societal commitment to combating sexual harassment.