The Bombay High Court has ruled that a man accused of grabbing and pressing a woman official’s shoulder and shoving her during an altercation could face charges for using criminal force and outraging her modesty, but the allegations did not prima facie amount to sexual harassment under Section 354-A of the IPC.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has ruled that grabbing and pressing a woman official's shoulder and shoving her away may amount to outraging her modesty, but does not by itself constitute sexual harassment when the alleged act lacks sexual intent or explicit sexual overtures.
The Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court granted partial relief to a man accused of manhandling a woman government official, ruling that the allegations did not prima facie attract the offence of sexual harassment under Section 354-A of the IPC.
Also Read
However, the court did not quash the entire FIR or chargesheet against him.
The case arose from an alleged incident at a Gram Panchayat office in February 2024.
What allegedly happened
According to the woman's complaint, the accused, an agriculturist, entered the Gram Panchayat office where she was posted and got into an argument with her.
During the altercation, he allegedly snatched documents from her, tore them up and threw them on a desk.
He then allegedly grabbed and pressed her right shoulder and shoved her away, an act that the complainant said made her feel ashamed and uncomfortable.
An FIR was registered alleging offences including using criminal force against a public servant, outraging the modesty of a woman and sexual harassment.
ALSO READ | Pathanamthitta sexual abuse case takes turn as medical test finds no assault; break-up motive probed
Why the court rejected the sexual harassment charge
The court examined whether the allegations met the legal ingredients of Section 354-A of the IPC, which deals with sexual harassment.
Justice Abhay Mantri observed that the complaint prima facie indicated that the man had used assault or criminal force against the official while she was performing her duties.
The court also held that the allegations could attract the provision concerning outraging the modesty of a woman.
However, it found that the allegations did not prima facie establish the specific elements required for sexual harassment.
The court noted the absence of an intention to make physical contact accompanied by unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures or a demand for sexual favours.
FIR not completely cancelled
The accused had approached the High Court seeking cancellation of the FIR and the chargesheet.
His lawyer argued that there was no intention to outrage the woman's modesty and alleged that the complaint had been filed because of a prior dispute involving the official.
The High Court did not accept the request to quash the entire case.
Instead, it granted relief specifically in relation to the sexual harassment allegation, while allowing the other applicable charges to remain.
What the ruling means
The ruling distinguishes between different offences involving unwanted physical conduct.
The court's observations indicate that an act can potentially amount to outraging a woman's modesty or using criminal force against a public servant without necessarily meeting the statutory requirements for sexual harassment under Section 354-A.
The ruling was based on the allegations and legal ingredients applicable to the case; it does not establish that physical contact with a woman official can never constitute sexual harassment.
Published: 28 Aug 2026, 10:41 am IST
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Related Topics
Disclaimer: Kindly avoid objectionable, derogatory, unlawful and lewd comments, while responding to reports. Such comments are punishable under cyber laws. Please keep away from personal attacks. The opinions expressed here are the personal opinions of readers and not that of Mathrubhumi.