The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceeding for outraging the modesty of a woman, against two person accused of body-shaming and verbally abusing the complainant, noting that body shaming alone does not by itself constitute offence of outraging a woman's modesty under Section 509 IPC. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 399]

Section 509 states that whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished. 

The single judge bench of Justice S.R Krishna Kumar while quashing the proceedings against two accused women said:

"...a perusal of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material including the statements of the complainant and the witnesses is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the same do not disclose or contain the necessary ingredients constituting the offence of Section 509 IPC as alleged by the respondents; it is also pertinent to note that having regard to the mandatory ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC, merely because the petitioners and accused No.3 are said to have body-shamed the complainant and insulted her about her physical appearance, it cannot be said that the material on record discloses the commission of the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC….”, the court noted that the prima facie ingredients of the offence alleged was not met.

The court also applied the doctrine of parity since one of the co-accused, a boy, was already abdicated from the crime by the High court.

The accused boy had earlier approached the court in 20224 and his plea was allowed. The court, in the instant case, noted that the allegations against the girls were 'identical, similar and common in relation to the very same incident' as that against the boy.

“….A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 09.08.2023, the second respondent—de facto complainant filed a complaint before the first respondent—police authorities making allegations against the petitioners and one… Apart from the fact that the material on record does not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 509 IPC by the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper to invoke/apply the doctrine of parity and quash the impugned proceedings insofar as the petitioners—accused Nos. 1 and 2 also…”, the court opined.

For context, the second respondent complained that three unidentified individuals including two girls and one boy, back in 2023, started name calling her and her friend in a public place, which included fat-shaming, body-shaming, racist remarks, and vulgar words. The complainant alleged that the accused were under the influence of alcohol, and yelled the abusive words at her.

Afterwards, an FIR was registered at Sadashivanagar Police Station against the petitioners and the accused boy for the offence under S.509 IPC. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in the matter.

The court held that the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material, and statements of witnesses did not disclose the necessary ingredients constituting the offence under Section 509 IPC. Accordingly, the criminal petition as allowed, and the pending proceedings before the jurisdictional court was quashed.