Court invokes doctrine of parity to quash charges against two accused following earlier quashing of co-accused's case, holding mere body-shaming insufficient to constitute offence of insulting woman's modesty.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 16, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, quashed the criminal proceedings against two accused persons in a case involving allegations of fat-shaming, body-shaming, and use of racist and vulgar words. The proceedings were instituted under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which punishes acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
The case arose from a complaint filed on August 9, 2023, by a woman who alleged that on the previous day, two girls and one boy had subjected her and her friends to severe verbal abuse including fat-shaming, body-shaming, racist comments, and vulgar language, causing them mental trauma. The complaint led to the registration of an FIR (Crime No. 203/2023) at Sadashivnagar Police Station against the petitioners and a third accused, Ashish Jain.
Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the trial court initiated proceedings against the accused under Section 509 IPC. However, upon review of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet, and statements of witnesses, the Karnataka High Court found that the allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC. The Court emphasized that mere insult to physical appearance or body-shaming, without elements that insult the modesty of a woman as defined by law, does not attract the said offence.
The Court recalled that the third accused, Ashish Jain, had earlier secured quashing of proceedings in respect of the same FIR and identical allegations by the same Court. Relying on the doctrine of parity - a principle that similarly situated accused should be treated alike - the Court granted identical relief to the present petitioners, effectively quashing the proceedings against them as well.
Justice Krishna Kumar observed that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law since the material on record failed to establish the commission of the offence under Section 509 IPC. The Court also noted that the second respondent (complainant) chose not to contest the petition.
This judgment clarifies the scope and applicability of Section 509 IPC in cases involving verbal insults and body-shaming, underscoring that not all forms of insults or abuses amount to an offence under this provision unless they specifically target a woman's modesty.
Bottom Line:
Quashing of proceedings - Allegations of fat-shaming, body-shaming, racist and vulgar words causing mental trauma - Mere body-shaming or insulting physical appearance, without disclosure of ingredients necessary to constitute offence of insulting modesty of a woman under Section 509 IPC, would not attract said offence - Where co-accused in same incident had already obtained quashing on identical allegations, proceedings against remaining accused also liable to be quashed on doctrine of parity.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 509; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Ms. Amrita M v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990552
