Grabbing & Pressing Woman's Shoulder, Shoving Her Away May Outrage Her Modesty; Not Sexual Harassment: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that a man's act of grabbing a woman's shoulder, pressing it and shoving her away, making her feel ashamed, may amount to outraging her modesty but the very act would not amount to sexual harassment as there is 'no sexual intent' or 'sexual overtures' or any unwelcome physical contact. 

Single-judge Justice Abhay Mantri therefore partly quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against one Girish Nigonda Patil, who was booked for barging into a Gram Panchayat office, quarrelling with the complainant female Block Development Officer (BDO), tearing some documents and then grabbing her shoulder, pressing it and shoving her away.

The woman claimed that she felt ashamed by such a conduct of the petitioner. 

Patil was therefore, booked under charges of assaulting a public servant (section 353), causing simple injury (section 323), outraging modesty of a woman (section 354) and sexual harassment (section 354-a) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The bench while perusing the material on record, prima facie, noted that the material indicated that the victim was doing her job in the Gram Panchayat office when the Petitioner entered into the office and quarrelled with her, and snatched the approval order, tore it up and threw it on the table. Thereafter, he grabbed and pressed her right shoulder and shoved her away after doing something that made her feel ashamed.

"Thus, prima facie, it reveals that the Petitioner used assault or criminal force to deter her from discharging her duty as a public servant and also outraged her modesty, causing her to feel ashamed. The said averments themselves attract the ingredients of Sections 323, 353 and 354 of the IPC. However, prima facie, it does not appear that the Petitioner, with an intent to commit physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures or a demand for sexual favours, as contemplated in Section 354-A of the IPC. Therefore, prima facie, the ingredients of Section 354-A of the IPC are not attracted against the Petitioner," the judge held. 

In the order pronounced on August 20, Justice Mantri noted from the FIR as well as the statements of the two eyewitnesses, one of whom was the Sarpanch of the Village and the other was the peon of the Gram Panchayat office, who were present on the spot. The judge opined that it appeared that their statements corroborate and support the statement of the victim.

"Moreover, the statements of the other witnesses, and other material, prima facie indicate that, on the day of the incident, the Petitioner was present on the spot and he outraged the modesty of the victim and also committed assault to deter her from discharging her official duty. Thereafter, he grabbed and pressed the victim's right shoulder and shoved her away after doing something that made her feel ashamed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the victim, with a malicious intention, lodged the FIR against the Petitioner," the judge held. 

The bench opined that the Petitioner prima facie failed to make out a case to quash the entire FIR, i.e. to quash the offences punishable under Sections 353, 354 and 323 of the IPC. However, prima facie, the ingredients of Section 354-A of the IPC are not attracted against the Petitioner and that being so, the judge said, the Petitioner has made out a case to invoke Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to the extent of Section 354-A of the IPC.

With these observations, the bench partly quashed the FIR.

Appearance:

Advocates Ritish Thobde, Changdev Shingade, Pushkaraj Yadav-Deshmukh, Divyashree Dhumal and Siddhi Jeur appeared for the Petitioner.

Additional Public Prosecutor Anand Shalgaonkar represented the State.

Advocate Ajit Vishwanath Alange represented the Complainant. 

Case Title: Girish Nigonda Patil vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 3550 of 2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 404

Click Here To Read/Download Order