The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a woman cannot be charged with sexual harassment under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), even if the alleged victim is another woman.

The bench of Justice A Badharudeen made this observation while partially quashing criminal proceedings brought by a woman against her in-laws in a case of marital cruelty.

Although the complaint included allegations of sexual harassment by the sister-in-law, the court clarified that Section 354A IPC, which addresses sexual harassment, applies exclusively to actions committed by men.

"In order to attract offence under Section 354A of IPC, the overt acts dealt under Section 354A(1), (2) and (3), should be the volition of 'a man.' So the legislature diligently used the term `a man' instead of `any person' In the statutory provision and the legislative intent is to exclude woman/women from the purview of Section 354A of IPC. If so, it has to be held that Section 354A of IPC would not apply when the overt acts dealt therein was done by a woman against another woman/ women," the Court held.

The Court was addressing a plea to quash criminal proceedings in a marital cruelty case involving a woman's mother-in-law and sister-in-law, among other accused.

The complainant had alleged mistreatment by her husband, his parents, and his sister, claiming she was subjected to cruelty related to demands for money and property, confined to a room, and starved.

She further accused her mother-in-law of endangering her safety by tampering with the gas stove and hindering her education. Additionally, she alleged that her sister-in-law had coerced her into inappropriate sexual activities through threats.

Based on these accusations, criminal charges were brought against the husband and in-laws under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), 354A (sexual harassment), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

The mother-in-law and sister-in-law later approached the High Court, seeking to quash the charges against them.

The petitioners' counsel argued that there were no specific allegations against them to justify the charges of marital cruelty and emphasized that women cannot be prosecuted under Section 354A of the IPC.

The Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the complainant had faced domestic violence and molestation related to demands for money and property, which prima facie established the commission of the alleged offences.

The Court found that the petitioners were subject to specific allegations that warranted a trial under Section 498A (cruelty to a married woman) of the IPC. Consequently, it refused to quash the Section 498A charges and allowed the trial for this offence to proceed.

However, the Court quashed the sexual harassment charges, clarifying that Section 354A of the IPC does not apply to women and, therefore, could not be used against the petitioners.

A similar ruling was recently delivered by the Calcutta High Court, which noted that "a female cannot be an accused under Section 354A of the IPC, as is evident from the very terminology used in the enactment."

The petitioners were represented by advocates V Arun, V Jaya Ragi, R Harikrishnan (Kambisseril), Neeraj Narayan, and Avaneeth SR.

Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth appeared on behalf of the State.