Staring At Colleague's Breast May Be Misconduct, Morally Wrong But Not Voyeurism: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR
Unwanted staring at a female colleague's breast can be indecent conduct of the man or morally wrong but it cannot amount to the offence of voyeurism punishable under Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as it mandates watching or recording a woman indulging into a private act and in a private place, the Bombay High Court held recently while quashing a FIR against a...
Unwanted staring at a female colleague's breast can be indecent conduct of the man or morally wrong but it cannot amount to the offence of voyeurism punishable under Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as it mandates watching or recording a woman indulging into a private act and in a private place, the Bombay High Court held recently while quashing a FIR against a man.
Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar in his April 8 order, quashed the FIR lodged against Abhijit Nigudkar with the Borivali Police Station in Mumbai, on a complaint filed by his female colleague, who alleged that the applicant insisted her to attend certain meetings alone and also used to insult her during work hours, also avoided normal eye contact with her and instead stared at her chest and made inappropriate comments
Justice Borkar while noting the definition of section 354-C, said it is not a general provision covering every form of offensive gaze or bad behaviour towards a woman and rather the said provision, the judge said, is specific.
"It applies where a man watches or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act, in circumstances where she would usually expect not to be seen by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator. The Explanation makes it more clear that the 'private act' must be one in which privacy is normally expected, such as exposure of intimate parts, use of lavatory, or sexual act not ordinarily done in public. The section also covers dissemination of images of such private act. The foundation of the offence is therefore intrusion into privacy in a private setting, or recording and circulation of such private act." Justice Borkar explained.
The complaint, the judge said, does not state that the applicant watched the complainant while she was engaged in any private act.
"It does not say that any image of a private act was captured. It does not say that the complainant was in a place or condition where she was reasonably expected not to be observed and that the applicant nonetheless watched her in that prohibited setting. The allegation is only that he stared at her chest during office meetings. Unwanted staring, even if accepted as true, is not the same thing as voyeurism within the meaning of Section 354-C. The statute cannot be stretched beyond its plain words," Justice Borkar held.
Referring to the statements of the complainant, the judge opined that it merely shows that the applicant deliberately insulted her, stared at her chest, and taunted her and that his conduct offended her modesty.
"But a close reading of the section shows that the law does not punish every act which offends modesty under Section 354-C. The legislature has used a much narrower description. The act complained of, must fall within the specific field of watching or capturing a woman in a private act. Mere offensive conduct in an office environment, even if morally wrong, cannot be brought inside this provision unless the statutory conditions are shown," Justice Borkar opined.
The judge further said that the criminal law is not meant to be used to convert every workplace grievance into an offence of voyeurism and that the Court has to see the substance of the accusation, not the label given to it.
"Here, the substance is of alleged staring at the chest, insulting behaviour, and workplace harassment. These may at the highest amount to misconduct, indecency, or some other wrong depending on the facts proved in proper proceedings. But they do not fit into the narrow mould of Section 354-C. To permit the prosecution to continue on such facts would be to ignore the clear language of the statute," the judge observed.
Further, Justice Borkar added, "The complainant may have genuinely felt offended and humiliated. The workplace atmosphere may indeed have become unpleasant. Yet criminal prosecution under Section 354-C cannot survive only on the basis of such allegations, unless there is watching or recording of a woman during a private act or dissemination of such image. That element is completely absent here. The FIR and the supporting statements, even if accepted in full, do not make out the offence."
With these observations, the judge quashed the FIR.
Appearance:
Advocates Amol Patankar and Neil Chandiwala appeared for the Applicant.
Additional Public Prosecutor Yogesh Nakhwa represented the State.
Advocate Ajinkya Udane represented the Complainant.
Case Title: Abhijit Baswant Nigudkar vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 774 of 2015)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 176