Sanchayita Lahkar

The Gauhati High Court Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma quashed the criminal proceedings in a sexual harassment case against an IIT professor, holding that the allegations did not disclose an offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The case arose from a woman’s complaint that, after she approached the professor for mentorship for her startup idea, he allegedly held and touched her hands repeatedly during a car ride, including while asking her to join her hands in prayer. Justice Sharma observed that mere touching of hands, without any act amounting to “force” or assault, was insufficient to attract the offence of outraging a woman’s modesty by assault or use of criminal force and therefore set aside the proceedings.

Also Read: CCS Pension Rules Apply To Central Government Employees, Payment Of Gratuity Act Not Applicable : Supreme Court

The petitioner contended that the complainant had earlier lodged an official complaint on similar allegations, which led to a departmental inquiry. The Inquiry Committee, after hearing both sides, exonerated him. It was submitted that the FIR was lodged thereafter due to personal grievance. The State and the complainant opposed the petition, contending that a prima facie case under Section 354 IPC was made out.

The Court reproduced Section 354 IPC and recorded: “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty…”

Referring to Section 349 IPC, the Court recorded: “A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other…” It observed that “in order 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 his body.” The Court further observed, “Mere touching would not or could not be brought in within the ambit of the definition of force as defined under Section 349 IPC.”

On assault under Section 351 IPC, the Court recorded: “Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.” It stated that “any gesture or preparation which is short of actual physical contact with the victim is required. When actual contact takes place, the action goes out of the ambit of the definition of assault.”

Examining the FIR and the Section 164 CrPC statement, the Court observed: “No motion, change of motion or cessation of motion was caused to the person of the complainant/victim.” It further recorded that “there is nothing in the contents of the FIR or the statement of the victim attributing any act on the part of the petitioner as would qualify as a gesture or preparation so, as to be termed as an assault.”

The Court stated, “A reading of the FIR as well as the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC in the present case does not reveal any direct allegation attributing intent to the petitioner and therefore, the element of mens rea required under Section 354 IPC is found to be missing in the facts of the present case.”

With regard to the prior departmental inquiry, the Court recorded that “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 thereafter with a view to wreck vengeance upon the petitioner which itself is an abuse of the process of the Court.” It concluded that “no case under Section 354 IPC is made out against the petitioner.”

Also Read: Proper Section 18 Notice Under Assam Land & Revenue Regulation Mandatory Before Evicting Illegal Occupants From Government Land: Gauhati High Court

The Court directed that “the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The proceedings in PRC case No.69/2024 pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First class, Kamrup, Amingaon stands quashed. The Criminal petition stands allowed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Z. Kamar, Senior Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. D.P. Goswami, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam; Mrs. D. Borpujari, Legal Aid Counsel

Case Title: Dr. Vimal Katiyar v. State of Assam & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GAU-AS:1523
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 362 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma