Casual touch doesn’t amount to harassment says Bombay High Court

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court in Avinash Prabhakar Chandra and Others v. The State of Maharastra and Others has held that casual touch by a colleague does not constitute the offense of outraging modesty of a woman. 

The division bench comprising of Justice TV Nalawade and Justice KK Sonawane quashed an FIR filed against the headmaster of Shri Sant Dnyaneshwar Prathmik Ashram School, Osamabad District. An assistant teacher working in the same school has accused the headmaster under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code for outraging her modesty.  

Background of the case

On September 26, 2018, when the complainant was teaching in her class, the headmaster entered the classroom. The headmaster held her hand in front of the whole class. He assured her to clear all her pending medical bills and leave allowance bills. Further, he also requested not to complain against him to the trustees of the school. He told the complainant that he has many relatives on high posts and no one can harm him. Post the threat, complainant folded her hands and apologised humbly. The headmaster touched her hands and pressed them.

On October 12, 2018, the complainant filed an FIR for penal action against the headmaster. Consequently, he filed an application under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing of the said proceedings.

Casual Touch

If any person uses criminal force upon any woman with intention or knowledge that the woman’s modesty will be outraged, he is to be penalized. In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 of IPC, mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of such outrage alone for its object.

The facts of the case show that there was no use of criminal force or assault by the headmaster. The court held that “the bare act of touching hands of fellow woman-teacher by the headmaster while assuring her that her pending bills will be cleared would not itself be sufficient to constitute an offence of outraging the modesty of a woman.” Prima facie, there is no intention of the headmaster to commit the offence of outraging her modesty. Hence, the court quashed the FIR. 

Here the question arises who gets to decide “casual touch”. For how long third parties will decide what women bodies feel.