Body-Shaming A Woman Alone Does Not Constitute An Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court
The Court quashed proceedings against two women and applied parity because an earlier order had quashed the same case against their co-accused on identical allegations.
Justice SR Krishna Kumar, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that merely body-shaming a woman or insulting her physical appearance does not, by itself, establish an offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet and criminal proceedings for the alleged offence under Section 509 of the IPC.
A Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed: “Having regard to the mandatory ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC, merely because the petitioners and accused No.3 are said to have body-shamed the complainant and insulted her about her physical appearance, it cannot be said that the material on record discloses the commission of the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC.”
Advocate Ankur Tripathi appeared for the petitioners. High Court Government Pleader Deepthi Alva appeared for the State. The complainant, despite service of notice, remained unrepresented.
Background
The complaint arose from an incident in which the complainant alleged that two women and a man had used words concerning her body and physical appearance, along with racist and vulgar expressions, causing her mental trauma and distress.
The police registered a case against the three accused for the alleged offence under Section 509 IPC. After investigating the allegations and obtaining statements from the complainant and an alleged eyewitness, the police filed a charge sheet.
The male co-accused had earlier approached the High Court. In 2024, the Court quashed the proceedings against him after finding that the complaint, FIR, charge-sheet material, witness statements and documents did not disclose the alleged offence.
The two women subsequently sought identical relief, contending that they faced the same allegations arising from the same incident.
Court’s Observations
The Court examined Section 509 of the IPC, which penalises a word, sound, gesture, exhibition of an object or intrusion upon a woman’s privacy when accompanied by an intention to insult her modesty.
The provision states: “Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.”
The Court held that the complaint and the investigation material had to disclose the mandatory elements of the statutory offence. The existence of insulting words alone could not substitute for those ingredients.
The Court examined the complaint, FIR, charge sheet, statements of the complainant and witnesses, and the documents produced during the investigation.
The Court held: “A perusal of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material including the statements of the complainant and the witnesses is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the same do not disclose or contain the necessary ingredients constituting the offence of Section 509 IPC as alleged by the respondents.”
The Court found that although the accused were alleged to have body-shamed the complainant and insulted her physical appearance, the material did not disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section 509 of the IPC.
The Court noted that the proceedings against the third accused had already been quashed. In that order, the High Court had found: “A perusal of the material on record comprising of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material, statement of witness, documents and etc., will clearly indicate that the same do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences.”
The Court found that the allegations against the two petitioners and the third accused were identical, similar and common and arose from the same incident.
The Court observed: “It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the allegations made against the aforesaid accused No.3 as well as the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 are identical, similar and common in relation to the very same incident.”
The Court consequently held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of parity. Apart from independently finding that the material did not disclose a Section 509 offence, it considered it just and proper to extend to them the same relief previously granted to their co-accused.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint, FIR, charge sheet and criminal proceedings against the two petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 509 of the IPC.
The Court also granted relief on parity with the co-accused against whom the same proceedings had already been quashed.
Cause Title: AM and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:50353]