‘Mere touching’ is not force: Why Gauhati High Court quashed sexual harassment case against IIT professor

Background

• The proceedings originated from an online complaint filed by an entrepreneur from Ahmedabad, who had contacted a professor of IIT Guwahati for mentorship regarding her startup.
• She alleged that in 2022, while the petitioner was dropping her off at a friend’s house in his car, he made “weird” remarks, held her hand several times to examine her palm lines, and asked her to pray before the Kamakhya Temple.
• Following her complaint, the trial court took cognisance of the offence under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the IPC.
• The professor subsequently moved the high court to quash the proceedings against him.

Court’s findings

• In the present case, as reflected in the FIR as well as in the statement of the survivor, the allegation is that the petitioner held the complainant’s hand.
• No motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion was caused to the person of the complainant.
• The petitioner was subjected to a full departmental inquiry with the participation of the complainant, whereafter the allegations made against the petitioner were found to be baseless.
• It does prima facie appear that due to the unfavourable result in the departmental proceedings, the complainant has sought to lodge the FIR after two and a half months, with a view to wreaking vengeance upon the petitioner, which itself is an abuse of the process of the court.
• From a close reading of Section 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 349 (Force) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it appears that for the action to qualify as force, it is necessary that the motion, change of motion or cessation of motion has to be caused to the person as a whole and not merely to any part of the body.
• In other words, unless and until the person has been forced to move or move in a direction different from which he was moving or forced to stop from moving if he was already moving, a person cannot be said to use force on another.
• Mere touching would not or could not be brought within the ambit of the definition of force as defined under Section 349 of the IPC.
• Unless the definition of force is satisfied, the question of the use of criminal force as defined under Section 350 (criminal force) would naturally not arise.
• From the definition of Section 351 (assault) of the IPC, any gesture or preparation that is short of actual physical contact with the victim is required. When actual contact occurs, the action falls outside the ambit of the definition of assault.