The Kolhapur bench of the Bombay High Court (HC) has held recently that grabbing a woman official’s shoulder does not constitute the offence of sexual harassment, granting partial relief to a male agriculturist accused of manhanding a female government official. 

It ruled that the allegations did not prima facie attract the offence of sexual harassment. However, the HC did not quash the FIR registered against the defendant. 

The case pertains to an alleged incident at a local Gram Panchayat office, where the man was accused of entering the premises and landing into an altercation with the female official. 

Man tears documents during heated exchange

The female government servant filed a complaint in February 2024, following which the police registered an FIR. The complaint alleges that the incident took place at around 12:30 pm, when the agriculturist allegedly entered the Gram Panchayat office where the woman was posted. 

An argument broke out between the duo, during which the man snatched several documents from the official, tore them up, and threw them on her desk. 

Following this, he allegedly grabbed and pressed her right shoulder before pushing her away, in an act she claimed caused her discomfort and triggered shame. Subsequently, the police registered an FIR against the agriculturist on charges of allegedly using assault or criminal force against a public servant to prevent her from discharging her duties, outraging a woman’s modesty and committing sexual harassment. 

Later, the accused approached the HC seeking the quashing of the FIR and the chargesheet filed by police. 

Defence claims allegations levelled are fake

Advocate Ritesh Thobde, appearing on behalf of the agriculturist, contended that there was no indication that his client had pressed the complainant’s shoulder with the intent to outrage her modesty. 

He also submitted that the agriculturist had lodged a complaint against the official earlier before the Block Development Officer, after which he served a notice on her. 

Thobde then alleged that the FIR was lodged against his client out of personal grudge and as a counterblast to the complaint. However, the HC refused to accept the argument as a basis for quashing the FIR in its entirety. 

Court draws line on sexual harassment charge

After examining the complainant’s statement, the bench hearing the case noted that it prima facie showed that she had been discharging her official duties when the man barged into the Gram Panchayat office and picked up an argument with her. 

The court also observed that he allegedly snatched a copy of an order, tore it up and threw it on the desk before grabbing and pressing her right shoulder and pushing her away. 

The bench asserted, “Thus, prima facie, it reveals that the Petitioner used assault or criminal force to deter the woman from discharging her duty as a public servant and also outraged her modesty, causing her to feel ashamed.” 

However, the court drew a distinction between those allegations and the offence of sexual harassment under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

While concluding its verdict, the court remarked, “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 (sexual harassment).” 

Consequently, the bench held that the ingredients of the Section 354-A IPC were not prima facie established against the petitioner.

Thus, while the defendant received relief from the sexual harassment charge, the court did not cancel the FIR itself, upholding the other allegations concerning criminal force against a public servant and outraging a woman’s modesty.