The ruling by Justice A. Badharudeen came while dismissing a former Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) employee’s plea to quash the sexual harassment case against him filed by a woman staffer of the same organisation
The Kerala High Court has held that a comment on a woman’s “body structure” is a sexually coloured remark, which would constitute the penal offence of sexual harassment.
The ruling by Justice A. Badharudeen came while dismissing a former Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) employee’s plea to quash the sexual harassment case against him filed by a woman staffer of the same organisation.
The woman had alleged that the accused used vulgar language against her from 2013 onwards and then in 2016–17 began sending objectionable messages and voice calls.
Despite complaints against him to the KSEB and the police, he continued sending her objectionable messages, she had claimed.
Following her complaints, the accused was booked for the offences under sections 354A (sexual harassment) and 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman) of the IPC and section 120(o) (causing nuisance through any means of communication by undesirable call, letter, writing, message) of the Kerala Police Act.
Seeking to quash the case, the accused claimed that mere reference that a person has a nice body structure could not be attributed to sexually coloured remarks within the ambit of section 354A and 509 of the IPC and section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.
The prosecution and the woman, on the other hand, contended that the calls and messages of the accused carried sexually coloured remarks intended to harass her and outrage her modesty.
Agreeing with the prosecution’s contentions, the Kerala High Court court said that prima facie, the ingredients to attract the offences under sections 354A and 509 of IPC and section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act “are made out”.
“Having noticed the facts of the case, it is discernible that the prosecution case is specifically made out, prima facie, to attract the offences alleged to be committed. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands dismissed. Interim order, already granted, shall stand vacated,” the court said in its January 6 order.