Kiran Raj

The Kerala High Court, on January 6, 2025, dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 354A(1)(iv) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The case arose from allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior lodged by a Senior Assistant at the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) against the petitioner, a retired Sub Engineer of the same organization.

The allegations pertained to incidents reported between 2013 and 2017, including comments allegedly made about the complainant’s physical appearance, explicit messages sent to her mobile phone, and continued harassment through calls and messages despite being blocked. The complainant also alleged inappropriate behavior by the petitioner during a retirement function. These incidents prompted multiple complaints to the KSEB and the local police, culminating in the registration of Crime No. 2607/2017 by the Aluva East Police Station. Following an investigation, a final report was submitted citing offenses under the specified provisions of law.

The petitioner, R. Ramachandran Nair, contended that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not meet the essential elements of the offenses under Section 354A(1)(iv) (sexual harassment by sexually colored remarks), Section 509 (acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman), and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act (nuisance through repeated communication). The petitioner argued that the proceedings lacked prima facie evidence and sought their quashing.

The High Court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, noted the statutory framework governing the alleged offenses. Referring to Section 509 of the IPC, the Court stated that the section applies to utterances, gestures, or actions intended to insult the modesty of a woman. The Court further observed that the concept of modesty includes a woman’s dignity and freedom from indelicacy or indecency. With respect to Section 354A(1)(iv) of the IPC, the Court stated, “Making sexually colored remarks to a woman constitutes sexual harassment under this provision.” The Court also referred to Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, noting that repeated communication causing annoyance or nuisance is sufficient to attract the provision.

The Court stated that the complaints and supporting materials, including statements and electronic evidence, provided sufficient grounds to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. The Court observed, “The allegations in the prosecution case, on their face, are sufficient to constitute the offenses alleged against the petitioner.” It noted that the allegations were serious and could not be dismissed as casual or non-offensive without trial.

The petitioner’s contention that the comments and messages were not intended to cause harm was rejected by the Court. The Court stated that the intention behind such acts and their impact on the complainant’s dignity and reputation were matters to be determined at trial. The Court further held that the prosecution had sufficiently demonstrated the presence of materials warranting the continuation of the proceedings.

Dismissing the petition, the Court stated, “Having considered the allegations and the materials presented, it is evident that the prosecution has established a prima facie case under the cited provisions. The plea to quash the proceedings is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.” The interim order granted during the pendency of the petition was vacated, and the jurisdictional court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

[View/Download order]