Madras High Court: Harassment of Woman in Public Place is Not Necessary Under Section 354 IPC

Sarthak Umang

Published on: 21 November 2022 at 18:41 IST

The Madras High Court concluded that harassment of a woman would still be an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC while rejecting a petition to quash the final report with regard to a sexual harassment case on the grounds that the harassment did not occur in a public place.

Justice RN Manjula while dismissing the petitition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, observed that, “Even for the sake of argument, if it is understood that in order to punish the accused for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the occurrence ought to have occurred in a public place, still the harassment of a woman is an offence and the accused can be punished under Section 354 IPC.”

Because, the Court is not precluded to punish the accused for any other lesser offence, if the offence is cognizable in nature”

The Metropolitan Magistrate court had received a petition from Sivaramakrishnan asking for the final report against him to be quash. The petitioner is alleged to have intimidated the de facto complaint regarding an ongoing civil lawsuit while also harassing the sister and de facto complainant in connection with a parking issue.

As a result, the petitioner was accused of violating IPC Sections 341, 294(b), 323, and 506(i) as well as Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002.

The petitioner asserted that the accused offense did not occur in a public area, but rather inside the home. He said that because Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 required the offense to be committed in a “public place,” it would not be possible to prove it.

The trial had already started, and only a few witnesses had been questioned, the court observed. According to the respondent’s statement, neither the petitioner nor the de facto complainant’s home was where the incident occurred; rather, it happened on a public walkway.

According to the court, only during the trial via the testimony of the witnesses could the precise location of the incident be determined. In addition, there was enough evidence to convict the petitioner of violating Sections 341, 294(b), 323, and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002. The court dismissed the petition after determining that it was inappropriate to call the records and suppress them at this point. The petitioner was permitted by the court to use the arguments as his defense at trial.

Related Post