Mere Assertion Of ‘Filthy Language’ Alleged In Complaint Is Not Sufficient To Establish An Offence U/S. 509 IPC: SC
The Supreme Court quashed a harassment case against the company management initiated by their former employee.
The Supreme Court has held that the mere assertion of "filthy language" alleged in a complaint is not sufficient to establish the commission of an offence under Section 509 of the IPC.
The Court set aside the impugned Order of the Karnataka High Court which dismissed the Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by the management officials (Appellants) of the company seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509 and 511 of the IPC initiated by a former employee.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held, "The term filthy language, when examined in isolation, and without any contextual framework or accompanying words, indicating an intent to insult the complainant's modesty, does not fall within the purview of Section 509 of the IPC. Had there been references to specific words used, contextual details, or any gestures—whether preceding, succeeding, or accompanying these words—that could demonstrate a criminal intent to insult the modesty, and it might have assisted the prosecution in establishing the case against the appellants,"
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra represented the Appellant, while AOR D. L. Chidananda appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
A complaint was filed by a former employee of the company, who alleged harassment by the Appellants. The complainant claimed she was forced to resign under duress, threatened with immediate termination, and physically harassed when she resisted. Her laptop, containing proprietary data, was confiscated, and she was escorted out of the office premises by security personnel.
The Appellants were accused of scolding the complainant in a “filthy language” and forcibly terminating her employment. Following the complaint, a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) was initially registered and later converted into an FIR.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court pointed out that only the chargesheet mentioned that the Appellants had used "filthy language" while scolding the complainant; however, no such allegation was made against them in the complaint.
While holding that there was a deliberate attempt to reclassify a civil dispute into a criminal matter to pressurise parties into settling the dispute potentially, the Court quashed a harassment case against the Appellants. The Bench had to determine whether the mere assertion of "filthy language" allegedly used by the Appellants in scolding the complainant was sufficient to establish offences under Sections 504 and 509 of the IPC.
The Court noted that the complainant primarily alleged illegal termination, which constitutes a civil dispute, rather than criminal intimidation.
The Bench pointed out, “To reiterate, in the present case, the complaint does not indicate that the appellants used language towards the complainant that would warrant an offence under Section 509 of the IPC. However, the chargesheet alleges that the appellants scolded the complainant using "filthy language." Notably, this allegation is also absent in the FIR.”
“The discrepancies and variations outlined above, suggest a deliberate attempt to reclassify the nature of the proceedings from non-cognizable to cognizable or to transform a civil dispute into a criminal matter, potentially aimed at pressurizing the appellants into settling the dispute with the complainant,” the Court remarked.
The Bench further noted, "Notwithstanding this, and as asserted by the appellants, there are certain facts that strongly suggest that the criminal proceedings were initiated by the complainant against the appellants with mala fide intentions, specifically to wreak vengeance, cause harm, or coerce a settlement. The presence of the second accused cannot by any stretch of imagination be visualised, if one were to barely read the complaints - initial and subsequent – and treat the contents as true; yet, the complainant alleged acts against him which, according to her, amounted to criminal offence. We are reminded of the maxim res ipsa loquitur and leave the discussion at that.”
Consequently, the Court held, “Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court, dated 31.07.2019, cannot be sustained and, consequently, stands set aside. The chargesheet and the entire proceedings in Case Crime No. 53073 of 2014, on the file of the ACCM, Bangalore, against the appellants also stand quashed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Madhushree Datta v. The State Of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 105)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra; Advocates Srijoy Das, Anmol Kheta and Ritik Gupta; AOR Prerna Mehta
Respondents: AOR D.L. Chidananda and J.P. Dhanda; Advocates Raj Rani Dhanda and Ashok Vasishtha
Click here to read/download the Judgment
