Court holds that mere abusive language does not constitute sexual harassment without specific sexually coloured remarks; quashes Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC charge but sustains charges under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), and 509 IPC
In a significant judgment dated September 16, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Jobin Sebastian, partially quashed criminal proceedings against Prasad Mahendragiri, who was charged under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including sexual harassment under Section 354A(1)(iv). The petitioner had challenged the final report filed against him in C.C. No. 274/2024 at the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta.
The case arose from an incident on March 9, 2024, at the Sree Maniyankottappan Mahakshethram premises in Kalpetta, where the petitioner allegedly abused the complainant (CW2) and her daughter in filthy language publicly. Upon being confronted by the complainant and another witness (CW3) on a public road, the petitioner reportedly used abusive language and made sexually coloured remarks, allegedly outraging their modesty, and threatened them with a machete.
The petitioner contended that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, the essential ingredients of the offences were lacking. The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations.
The High Court reiterated the principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, emphasizing that such extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process or secure justice.
On examining the allegations, the Court observed that mere abusive or obscene words directed at a woman do not automatically attract the offence of sexual harassment under Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC unless there is a specific allegation of sexually coloured remarks. Since the complaint did not specifically allege sexually coloured remarks distinct from general abuse, the Court held that the ingredients of Section 354A(1)(iv) were not made out and quashed this charge.
However, the Court found prima facie substance in the allegations under Sections 294(b) (obscene acts and songs in public), 506(ii) (criminal intimidation), and 509 (insult to modesty of a woman). The presence of filthy language in a public place and the threat with a machete were sufficient to sustain these charges for trial. The intention to insult modesty under Section 509 requires evidence to be examined during trial, and hence, the Court refused to quash proceedings under this provision.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition in part, quashing only the sexual harassment charge under Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC, while directing that other charges continue to be tried in accordance with law. The Court clarified that the observations in the order are limited to the quashing petition and shall not influence the trial court's merit-based adjudication.
This ruling provides clarity on the threshold for offences involving sexual harassment by distinguishing general abusive language from sexually coloured remarks. It also underscores the cautious approach courts must adopt in exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Quashing of criminal proceedings partly allowed - Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS to be exercised sparingly - Mere abusive or obscene words do not by themselves attract Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC unless there is a specific allegation of sexually coloured remarks - Proceedings under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 509 IPC allowed to continue as their ingredients were prima facie disclosed or required trial for determination.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC, Section 294(b) IPC, Section 506(ii) IPC, Section 509 IPC, Section 482 CrPC, Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Prasad Mahendragiri v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2993431
