Kerala HC quashes FIR against teacher US 354, 354A(1) IPC

A single judge bench of Judge A. Badharudeen noted that the petitioner was trying to impose restrictions to strictly enforce discipline during the Youth Festival and it cannot be assumed that he had any intention to outrage modesty or sexually intimidate the actual complainant.

“Summarizing the factual matrix in this case, it is clear that when the actual complainant tried to go to the venue on the pretext of carrying an oil lamp, after completion of the program the outer time limit of 9:00 PM was exceeded as per the guidelines . As part of strict adherence to discipline, the petitioner objected to this and there was an altercation as part of conduct and resistance. In such a situation Prima facie, it cannot be held that the petitioner in this case had any intention to in any way outrage the modesty of the actual complainant or to sexually intimidate her. Apart from that, the physical contact as part of such resistance could not be considered as the contact that brought out unwanted and explicit sexual advances. Failure to file a complaint in this regard, at least with the university authorities, soon after the incident would show that the allegations in the complaint and in the FIS are post-facto events. Looking at the facts of this case from the above perspective, none of the offenses are prima facie proven.”

The allegation was that the petitioner got angry and forcibly groped the breast of the actual complainant, who was a stage manager at the Sargam Youth Festival, 2024 at CUSAT. It was alleged that the actual complainant became mentally depressed and ashamed. She also alleged that the petitioner had threatened her to reveal this to anyone, stating that her studies would be jeopardized if she did so.

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

The petitioner stated that he and other faculties had been given strict instructions by the university to conclude the Youth Festival at 9 p.m. He submitted that to avoid any untoward incident during this year’s Youth Festival, the university had decided to strictly enforce the university’s guidelines; these came about after a stampede occurred last year during an annual engineering festival that killed four people, prompting the government to issue directions to institutions for holding festivities. He alleged that the University Union was hostile to the petitioner due to the strict application of restrictions on the Youth Festival. It was alleged that the petitioner prevented the actual complainant and a boy from entering the hall at night to take an oil lamp, which they refused and tried to enter the hall by force. It was alleged that during the altercation, the petitioner touched the body of the actual complainant with his hand. The petitioner alleged that there were other witnesses to the above incident.

The petitioner states that a complaint was filed against him for political reasons and to cause him trouble. He submitted that there was a delay of more than three months in filing the compliance certificate with the Vice Chancellor and more than four months in filing the FIR. He submitted that FIR was lodged only because he strictly enforced discipline during the Youth Festival.

The court observed that the most essential ingredient to attract an offense under Section 354 of the IPC is the assault or use of criminal force against any woman with intent to cause anger or knowing that it is likely that he will thereby offend her modesty. It also stated that for an offense to be constituted under Section 354 A (1) of the IPC, there must be unwanted and sexual advances involving physical contact and advances, of demanding or soliciting sexual favors, of showing pornography against the wishes of women and of sexually explicit comments.

Based on the factual matrix, the court said that it was observable that the petitioner was trying to prevent the actual complainant from entering the room for strict application of the disciplinary measures and the altercation was a result of that.

Then it said: “In view of this case, the FIR has been registered with the Vice Chancellor after 4 months and 6 days after 3 months and 26 days of filing the complaint because the side issue is not bona fide and the prayer for the FIR to destroy will probably succeed.”

The Supreme Court subsequently quashed the FIR saying that the petitioner cannot in any way hinder the studies of the actual complainant.

Case title: Dr. PK Baby v. State of Kerala

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

Counsel for respondents: Advocate Asif MA, Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth

Case number: CRL.MC NO. 6103 OF 2024

Visa: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 629

Click here to download the order