The Court noted that the provision is gender-specific and that only a male person can be held liable under this Section.
The Calcutta High Court recently noted that, in the case of Susmita Pandit vs. State of West Bengal & Another, a woman cannot be charged with sexual harassment under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta clarified that Section 354A, which deals with sexual harassment, is specifically intended for men.
“It can be safely accepted that a female cannot be an accused under Section 354A of the IPC as is evident from very terminology as used in the said enactment. This offence is gender specific and only a male can be prosecuted under this offence. A female accused will not be covered under the mischief of this Section as a result of the specific words ‘a man’ used in the Section 354A sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of the IPC,” the Court noted in its July 26 judgment.
The Court also emphasized that criminal law must be interpreted strictly, as demonstrated by the Supreme Court ruling in Tolaram Relumal and Another vs. the State of Bombay.
“if two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the Court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty. It is not competent to the court to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the Legislature in order to carry out the intention of the Legislature,” the High Court said.
The Court made these points while reviewing a plea from a woman (the petitioner), who was one of four people accused in a 2018 case involving sexual harassment and intimidation.
The complaint alleged that the petitioner’s father (the main accused) tried to molest the complainant’s mother. It also claimed that the petitioner and others repeatedly intimidated and harassed the complainant’s mother.
The petitioner asked the High Court to drop the case against her, arguing that there were no specific charges against her and that she had no involvement in the alleged crime.
Her lawyer noted that Section 354A of the IPC begins with “a man,” indicating it only applies to male defendants. He also pointed out that the charge sheet lacks specific allegations against the petitioner to justify a charge under Section 354 (use of criminal force on a woman) of the IPC.
The lawyer further argued that the petitioner was implicated solely because she is the daughter of the main suspect.
In response, the State argued that all the accused shared a common intention and that the petitioner was among those who threatened the complainant and her mother with serious consequences.
The Court found the allegations against the petitioner to be unclear and too general. It also noted that Section 354A of the IPC, which deals with sexual harassment, cannot be used against the petitioner since she is a woman. Therefore, the Court dismissed the case against her.
The Court added, “The allegations seem to be an attempt to involve the petitioner out of spite and personal grudges. In such cases, the High Court can use its power under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent misuse of the legal process and ensure justice.”
Advocates Ayan Bhattacharjee, Amitabrata Hait, and Arpit Choudhury represented the petitioner, while Advocates Madhusudan Sur and Dipankar Paramanick represented the State.
