Looking at a female colleague’s breast in an office environment may be morally wrong or indecent behavior for a man, but it does not amount to the offense of voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Bombay High Court recently said under the Bar and Bench and Live Law.
Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines and punishes the offense of voyeurism. He says:
“Any man who observes or captures an image of a woman engaged in a private act in circumstances where she would ordinarily expect not to be observed by the offender or by any other person at the offender’s behest, or who disseminates such image, shall be liable on a first conviction to imprisonment of either description for a term of not less than one year and may also be liable to a fine which may extend to three years. on a second or subsequent conviction to imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding three years, which may, however, be extended up to seven years, and shall also be punished with a fine.
Read also | Kunal Kamra tells Bombay HC on Sahyog: ‘Worse situation when…’
Staring in an office environment does not fall into this category.
The case in the Bombay High Court relates to a complaint alleging that during meetings, the accused did not maintain eye contact and instead stared at parts of her body and made inappropriate comments, NDTV reported.
The company’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) had earlier cleared the accused in the matter.
In this particular case, Justice Amit Borkar ruled that such conduct was morally wrong but did not meet the legal criteria under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), NDTV reported.
Read also | ‘They will freeze salaries’: Bombay HC warns civic officials against air pollution in Mumbai
According to the Indian Express, on April 8, a court issued a charge sheet against a man who was charged by the Mumbai Police in 2015 for the offense of voyeurism, punishable under Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court then stayed the first information report (FIR) and subsequent criminal proceedings against the executive of the private insurance company, saying that the law cannot be extended beyond simple words. Proceeding with the case would be an abuse of court, the court noted.
Single Judge Amit Borkar observed, “The allegation is only that he stared at her breast during office meetings. Unwanted staring, even if accepted as true, is not the same as voyeurism within the meaning of section 354-C. The statute cannot be extended beyond its lewd words.”
Delhi HC stays voyeurism case against ice cream vendor
Last month, the Delhi High Court quashed an FIR registered against an ice cream vendor for voyeurism and stalking in a compromise between the parties, appreciating his “benevolent gesture” of giving ice cream to all employees of the Model Town police station.
According to a PTI report on March 22, Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that since there was a voluntary settlement in the matter, continuing the FIR, registered in 2018 against the petitioner, would be an exercise in futility.
Read also | SC stays Bombay HC on 7/11 Bombay blast case; no stay on release 12 acquitted
“Accordingly, this petition is accepted and FIR No. 23/2018 dated 20.01.2018 registered at PS: Model Town under Section 354(C)/354(D)/385/384 IPC and all proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed,” the court said in an order passed on March 13.
The alleged victim stated that, based on the January agreement, the appellant paid her a settlement amount of ₹45,000. She said she was now married with a child and had no objection to quashing the FIR.
The court said that though it was “remembered” that the current FIR was registered for the alleged offenses of voyeurism, stalking and extortion, “a lot of water has flown since then” and the victim wanted to “move forward in her new stable life”.
