Women cannot be held liable for sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently observed that a woman cannot be held liable for the offence of sexual harassment under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Susmita Pandit Versus State of West Bengal & Another]..Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta explained that Section 354A of the IPC, which deals with sexual harassment, is gender-specific and that only a male person can be held liable for the offence under this Section. "It can be safely accepted 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. This offence is gender specific and only a male can be prosecuted under this offence. A female accused will not be covered under the mischief of this Section as a result of the specific words 'a man' used in the Section 354A sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of the IPC," the Court noted in its July 26 judgment..The Court also pointed out that criminal law provisions have to be strictly interpreted, as already observed in case laws such as the Supreme Court ruling in Tolaram Relumal and Anr v the State of Bombay."if two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the Court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty. It is not competent to the court to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the Legislature in order to carry out the intention of the Legislature," the High Court said. .The Court made these observations while dealing with a plea filed by a woman (petitioner) who was one among four persons accused in a 2018 criminal case that involved allegations of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation. The complaint accused the petitioner's father (main accused) of trying to molest the complainant's mother. The criminal case initiated in the matter accused the petitioner and others of continuously intimidating and torturing the complainant's mother.The petitioner moved the High Court to set aside the criminal proceedings against her, arguing that there were no specific allegations made against her. She had no role to play in the alleged crime, she said. The petitioner's lawyer argued that Section 354A of the IPC specifically begins with the term "a man," meaning that charges under this provision can only apply to a male accused. Additionally, the charge sheet contains no specific allegations against the petitioner to justify a charge under Section 354 (use of criminal force on woman) of the IPC, he added.The counsel further contended that the petitioner has been implicated solely because she is the daughter of the main accused.The State countered that there was a common intention shared by all the accused and that the petitioner was among those who threatened the complainant and her mother with dire consequences..The Court, however, found that the allegations made against the petitioner were vague and omnibus. Moreover, the Court pointed out that the offence of sexual harassment under Section 354A of the IPC could not be cited against the petitioner, since the petitioner is a woman. The Court, therefore, quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. "All the allegations made against the present petitioner is merely for implication with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite her due to private and personal grudge. In such a case, High Court can exercise inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the end of justice," the Court added. .Advocates Ayan Bhattacharjee, Amitabrata Hait and Arpit Choudhury appeared for the petitioner.Advocates Madhusudan Sur and Dipankar Paramanick appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]