Unwelcome talk with woman annoying but doesn’t amount to outraging her modesty—Punjab & Haryana HC

High court quashes FIR against an anaesthesiologist at PGIMS Rohtak against whom a female doctor had lodged a complaint.

Punjab & Haryana HC said the man’s conduct, as unpleasant as it was, was not 'shocking the sense of decency of a woman' to constitute an offence under IPC section 354. | Commons

Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that making an effort to engage in an unwelcome talk with a woman may be annoying but does not amount to outraging her modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless it entails criminal force or assault.

Quashing an FIR lodged by a female doctor at Rohtak’s Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences against an anaesthesiologist accused of harassing her in July 2020, Justice Kirti Singh pronounced the judgment on 18 September, holding the incident did not possess the necessary intent or physicality required for imposing criminal charges.

According to the case details, the incident occurred at the PGIMS Rohtak library, where the accused approached the complainant, greeted her, and attempted to strike up a conversation by telling her that he saw her on a scooty and that he was an anesthesia resident.

Despite her clear refusals and evident disinterest, he persisted briefly before leaving without any physical contact or threatening behaviour. But the complainant lodged an FIR under sections 354A (sexual harassment) and 451 (trespass) of the IPC at the PGIMS Police Station on 26 July 2020.

In her testimony at the trial court, she, however, said she had no other complaints against the accused.

As per the complainant’s testimony before the trial court, the accused came and sat beside her in the PGIMS Rohtak’s library and said “hey” and she just looked at him angrily and resumed reading.

Then he said, “I want to talk to you.” she responded, “I don’t want to talk to you.” Then he said, “I saw you on the scooty.” Again, she replied, “I don’t want to talk to you.” Despite that, he kept trying to initiate a conversation and said that he is an anesthesia resident. She again said, “I don’t want to talk to you.” Thereafter, he left.

In her order, Justice Kirti Singh said the man’s conduct, as unpleasant as it was, was not “shocking the sense of decency of a woman” to constitute an offence under Section 354 IPC (assaulting or using criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty or knowing it is likely to do so.)

“The prosecutrix’s version reveals no application of criminal force, and the accused departed after her denials,” the court observed, concluding that continuing with the case would be an abuse of legal process.

“To the considered mind of this Court, the said act, though can be seen as annoying and unwelcome, cannot be said to be such as to shock the sense of decency of a woman. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, as ascertained from the contents of the FIR and the statements of the prosecutrix, especially so when the record is silent with respect to use of any criminal force by the petitioner, even prima facie, the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC are not made out,” the court observed.

Citing the Supreme Court judgement in the January 2025 Naresh Aneja vs State of Uttar Pradesh case, the court held that for the charge under section 354 of the IPC to sustain, criminal force with intent to outrage modesty of a woman must be there in the allegations.

(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)