Kerala HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Man For His Comment That Body Structure Of His Woman Co-Worker Was 'Fine'

The Kerala High Court has refused to quash a case of sexual harassment and insult to modesty against a man who had allegedly commented that the body structure of a junior co-worker was "fine" and had sent messages with sexual overtures.
The Court was hearing a petition for quashing of a First Information Report filed under Section 354A(iv) (Sexual harassment) and 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 120 (Penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (KP Act).
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen said, "In the instant case the allegation of the prosecution is that the accused with intention to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant, by making sexually coloured remarks and overtures... while the defacto complainant was working at the Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (`KSEB Ltd.’ for short), commented that the body structure of the defacto complainant was fine and thereafter... the accused sent messages with sexual overtures to the mobile number of the defacto complainant from his mobile number. Having noticed the facts of the case, it is discernible that the prosecution case is specifically made out, prima facie, to attract the offences alleged to be committed."
Advocate P. Mohamed Sabah appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Vinay Vijay Shanker and Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth appeared for the Respondents.
The case against the accused is that he made sexually coloured remarks and overtures while the complainant was working at the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. The complainant alleged that the accused, who was a colleague senior to her in designation, commented that the body structure of the complainant was “fine” and later sent messages with sexual overtures to the complainant.
The complainant alleged that the accused subjected her to insult by using vulgar language among the co-workers in public platforms, and upon filing a complaint with the Executive Engineer, the accused was transferred to another section. However, the accused allegedly continued to make frequent calls and send vulgar messages. She then approached the Vigilance Officer with a complaint, but the accused still continued indecent behaviour. Thereafter, the FIR that was being sought to be quashed in the present case was filed.
The accused contended that mere reference that a person has a "nice body structure", as the Court notes his submission, could not count as sexually coloured remarks within the ambit of Section 354A(1)(iv) or 509 of the IPC or Section 120(o) of the KP Act.
Upon analysing the prosecution's allegations, the Court concluded that the ingredients to attract offence under Section 509 of IPC are made out, prima facie. The Court also analysed whether 120(o) of KP Act is made out. This provision penalises causing nuisance to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a messenger.
Citing its previous Judgment in Raveendran V.K v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2024), the High Court said, "if any person causing inconvenience or annoyance through any means of communication, a nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a messenger, is an offence. Therefore, in the facts of this case, Section 120(o) of the K.P Act also squarely would apply."
On Section 354A of the IPC, which deals with sexual harassment, the Court noted that the provision penalises advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures and making sexually coloured remarks to a woman, among other things.
Noting the legal position on quashment of criminal proceedings, the Court said, "Indubitably, the legal position is clear on the point that quashment of criminal proceedings can be resorted to when the prosecution materials do not constitute materials to attract the offence alleged to be committed.
It added, "Similarly, the Court owes a duty to look into the other attending circumstances, over and above the averments to see whether there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding instituted maliciously with ulterior motives. Once the said fact is established, the same is a good reason to quash the criminal proceedings."
With regard to the present case, the Court, after noting that the prosecution case is prima facie made out to attract the offences alleged to be committed, the Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and vacated an interim Order previously passed.
Cause Title: R. Ramachandran Nair v. State of Kerala And Ors. [2025:KER:356]
Click here to read/download the Order