The Karnataka High Court has held that allegations of body-shaming, verbal abuse and remarks about a woman’s physical appearance, by themselves, did not satisfy the legal requirements of an offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with acts intended to insult a woman’s modesty. Justice S. Krishna Kumar accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings against two petitioners arising from the same incident.
Background
The proceedings arose from Crime No. 203/2023 registered at Sadashivanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, following a complaint concerning an incident on August 8, 2023. The complaint alleged that two women and a man had engaged in name-calling, including fat-shaming, body-shaming, racist and vulgar remarks.
Following investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, leading to proceedings in C.C. No. 1060/2024 before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, complaint, charge sheet and subsequent proceedings.
Justice S. Krishna Kumar examined the complaint, FIR, charge sheet and witness statements. The Court found that the material did not satisfy the legal requirements of Section 509 IPC, which concerns words, gestures or acts intended to insult a woman’s modesty or intrude upon her privacy.
The Court specifically observed:
"having regard to the mandatory ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC, merely because the petitioners and accused No.3 are said to have body-shamed the complainant and insulted her about her physical appearance, it cannot be said that the material on record discloses the commission of the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC."
The Court also noted that proceedings against accused No.3 arising from the same incident had earlier been quashed. Since the allegations against the present petitioners were identical and related to the same occurrence, the Court considered it appropriate to apply the doctrine of parity.
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 1060/2024 arising from Crime No. 203/2023, insofar as the two petitioners were concerned.
