Woman cannot be booked for sexual harassment of another woman under Section 354A IPC: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that a woman cannot be booked for the offence of sexual harassment under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), even if the offence is alleged to have been committed against another woman. .Justice A Badharudeen made the observation while partially quashing criminal proceedings initiated by a woman against her in-laws in a marital cruelty case. The case included allegations that the complainant had been sexually harassed by her sister-in-law. However, the High Court noted that Section 354A of the IPC, which punishes sexual harassment, applies only to acts committed by men."In order to attract offence under Section 354A of IPC, the overt acts dealt under Section 354A(1), (2) and (3), should be the volition of 'a man.' So the legislature diligently used the term `a man' instead of `any person' In the statutory provision and the legislative intent is to exclude woman/women from the purview of Section 354A of IPC. If so, it has to be held that Section 354A of IPC would not apply when the overt acts dealt therein was done by a woman against another woman/ women," the Court held..The Court was dealing with a plea to quash a marital cruelty initiated against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law (among other accused) of a woman.The complainant-woman had alleged that she had been mistreated by her husband, his parents and his sister.She alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by the accused in connection with demands for money and property and was even was detained in a room and starved.She accused her mother-in-law of attempting to harm her by tampering with the gas stove and obstructing her studies, and her sister-in-law of coercing her into improper sexual activities through threats..Criminal proceedings were initiated against the accused (husband and in-laws) under Sections 498A (husband or relative subjecting a woman to cruelty), 354A (sexual harassment), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC.The woman's mother-in-law and sister-in-law (petitioners) later moved the High Court to quash the criminal charges against them. .The petitioners' counsel argued that there were no specific allegations against them to substantiate the marital cruelty charges and added that that women could not be held liable under Section 354A, IPC.The Public Prosecutor countered that the complainant was subjected to domestic violence and molestation by the accused in connection with demands for money and property, which prima facie established the commission of the alleged offences..The Court found that there were specific allegations against the petitioners that prima facie warranted a trial for the offence under Section 498A (cruelty to married woman) of the IPC. Therefore, it refused to quash the Section 498A case and allowed the trial to continue with respect to this offence. However, the Court quashed the sexual harassment charges since Section 354A IPC cannot be invoked against women and, therefore, could not be invoked against the petitioners. A similar ruling was recently passed by the Calcutta High Court, which had observed that, "a female cannot be an accused under Section 354A of the IPC as is evident from very terminology as used in the said enactment.".The petitioners were represented by advocates V Arun, V Jaya Ragi, R Harikrishnan (Kambisseril), Neeraj Narayan, and Avaneeth SR.Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth appeared for the State..[Read Order]