‘Physical contact during resistance is not unwelcome sexual advance’: Kerala HC quashes FIR

The Kerala High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against Dr. PK Baby, Director of Youth Welfare and member of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Union (CUSAT), who was accused of sexually harassing a student during a youth festival.

The court found that the physical contact that occurred during the incident was not an unwelcome or explicit sexual advance, but rather part of a resistance effort to maintain discipline.

Justice A. Badharudeen, who presided over the court, was hearing a case arising out of an incident that took place on March 1, 2024, during the ‘Sargam’ Youth Festival at CUSAT. The complainant, a law student and stage organizer, alleged that after the program ended at 9pm, she attempted to retrieve an oil lamp from the stage with another student, Sharan. Dr. Baby (plaintiff) allegedly stopped her, became agitated and grabbed her tightly, touching her chest twice, despite her objections. The complainant further alleged that Dr. Baby threatened her, stating that if she reported the incident, her studies would be interrupted. The FIR has charged Dr. Baby under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A(1) (sexual harassment) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC ).

Advocate Salim VS, representing the petitioner, argued that the FIR was lodged 127 days after the alleged incident, suggesting that the delay indicated that the complaint was lodged with malicious intent. It was further highlighted that the university implemented strict guidelines following a fatal stampede at an event in 2023. These guidelines, approved by the university’s Union, required all events to end by 9pm, and the petitioner was responsible for ensuring compliance during the festival . It was also alleged that the complainant was trying to circumvent these rules by entering the auditorium after the designated time, which led to an altercation when the petitioner blocked her entry. The petitioner maintained that any physical contact was incidental and arose from his efforts to enforce the guidelines, and not as an intentional act of harassment.

On the other hand, the complainant, represented by Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth (for the state) and Advocate Asif MA, contended that the petitioner’s actions were intentional, constituting sexual harassment and intimidation. The prosecution, supported by the findings of the Internal Grievance Committee inquiry, argued that the case warranted a thorough investigation to uncover the truth and therefore the FIR should not be quashed at this stage.

The court, after examining the facts, concluded that the altercation appeared to be the result of Dr. Baby’s efforts to impose discipline in accordance with university guidelines, and there was no evidence to suggest an intention to outrage the complainant’s modesty or engage in sexual harassment.

Further, the court observed that the essential elements required to constitute offenses under Sections 354 and 354A(1) of the IPC have not been established. “It could not be considered, prima facie, that the petitioner herein had any intention to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant in any manner or to sexually harass her. Furthermore, physical contact as part of such resistance could not be considered one that promoted explicit and unwelcome sexual overtures,” the court noted.

The court also took into consideration the significant delay in filing the FIR and stated, “In view of the matter, the FIR was registered after 4 months and 6 days, after 3 months and 26 days of filing the complaint with the Vice Chancellor as it lacks a good faith afterthought.”

As a result, the court allowed the petition to dismiss the case. However, the court warned the petitioner against taking any retaliatory measures that could harm the complainant’s studies and noted that such actions would be treated with due seriousness.