• Source:JND
Add as a preferred

The Kerala High Court has stated that a comment on a woman’s “body shape" is a sexually coloured remark which would constitute penal offence of sexual harassment. Justice A Badharudeen dismissed a former Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) employee’s plea to quash the sexual harassment case against him filed by a woman staffer of the same organisation.

The woman had alleged that the accused used vulgar language against her, starting 2013 and then in 2016-17 began sending objectionable messages and voice calls. Even after complaints against him to the police, he continued sending her objectionable messages, she had claimed.

READ MORE: Delhi-Dehradun Expressway: Akshardham To Baghpat Stretch To Launch This Month; PM Likely To Inaugurate | Details

The accused was booked for the offences under sections 354A (sexual harassment) and 509 (insulting modesty of a woman) of the IPC and section 120(o) (causing nuisance through any means of communication by undesirable call, letter, writing, message) of the Kerala Police Act.

Meanwhile, the accused claimed that mere reference that a person has a nice body structure could not be attributed to sexually coloured remarks within the ambit of section 354A and 509 of the IPC and section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.

The prosecution and the woman, on the other hand, contended that the calls and messages of the accused carried sexually coloured remarks intended to harass her and outrage her modesty.

READ MORE: Los Angeles Wildfire Forces 30,000 Residents To Evacuate, California Governor Declares Emergency

Agreeing with the prosecution’s contentions, the Kerala High Court court said that prima facie, the ingredients to attract the offences under sections 354A and 509 of IPC and section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act “are made out”.

“Having noticed the facts of the case, it is discernible that the prosecution case is specifically made out, prima facie, to attract the offences alleged to be committed. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands dismissed. Interim order, already granted, shall stand vacated,” the court said in its January 6 order.