Harassment Of Women Would Still Be An Offence Even If Not Committed In Public Place: Madras High Court

While dismissing a petition to quash the final report with respect to a sexual harassment case on the ground that the harassment did not occur in the public place, the Madras High Court held that harassment of a woman would still be an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.Even for the sake of argument, if it is understood that in order to punish the accused for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the occurrence ought to have occurred in a public place, still the harassment of a woman is an offence and the accused can be punished under Section 354 IPC. Because, the Court is not precluded to punish the accused for any other lesser offence, if the offence is cognizable in nature, Justice RN Manjula observed.The court was dealing with a petition filed by one Sivaramakrishnan seeking to quash the final report filed against him in the Metropolitan Magistrate court. The crux of the case was that the petitioner is said to have harassed the de facto complainant and her sister in filthy language in connection with a parking issue and also threatened her about a pending civil suit. The petitioner was thus charged with offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002.The petitioner claimed that the alleged offence took place inside the house and not in a public place. Thus, he contended that the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 would not be made out as the same required the offence to be committed in a "public place". The court noted that the trial had already commenced and few witnesses had also been examined. According to the statement of respondent, the occurrence had taken place at a common pathway and not inside the house of either the petitioner or the de-facto complainant. The court opined that the exact location of the occurrence could be identified only during trial through the witness statements. At the same time, there were sufficient materials to charge the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Thus, finding that it was inappropriate to call the records and quash them at this stage, the court dismissed the petition. The court also gave liberty to the petitioner to raise the points as his defence during trial.Meaning of Public PlaceSection 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 reads as under,"4. Penalty of (harassment of woman) - whoever commits or participates in or abets (harassment of woman) in or within the precincts of any educational institution, temple or other place of worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema theatre, park, beach, place of festival, public service vehicle or vessel or any other place shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than thousand rupees".The petitioners relied on the judgment of the Madras High court in Anbazhagan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, wherein the court applied the principle of Ejusdem Generis and held that only offences committed at public places would attract the offence under the Act. In another decision, the court had observed that the intent of the legislature was to penalise offences occuring in public places which is clear from the language used in the Act. The court observed as under,Section 4 of the Act was meant to deal with offences occurring in the places informed or in places of like nature. If not so read, the mention of the particular places in Section 4 would be rendered redundant and such could not have been the legislative intent.However, the respondents submitted that the intention of the special act was to prevent harassment and that the place of occurence did not make a difference. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Basheer Ahamed and others v. State, rep. by The Inspector of Police wherein the Madras High Court had observed that the conjoint reading of Section 3 and 4 would show that the intention of the legislature was to prevent harassment at any place. The court observed that except the technical interpretation, no challenge has been made out by the petitioner. Further, even if the offence was not committed in the public place, it would still attract offences as contemplated under the IPC.Case Title: M.R.Sivaramakrishnan v State and anotherCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 471Click here for the judgment

Harassment Of Women Would Still Be An Offence Even If Not Committed In Public Place: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Harassment Of Women Would Still Be An Offence Even If Not Committed In Public Place: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers