In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a sexual harassment case against a company director, holding that a single abusive remark in a workplace exchange did not amount to an offence under Section 354-A of the IPC.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a dispute between a company director and a former employee who had been working as a Business Manager. According to court records, tensions escalated in October 2018 when the employee sought medical leave just days before a company event.
Emails were exchanged between the two, during which an argument broke out. The employee later resigned, and her resignation was accepted the same day. Several weeks later, legal notices were exchanged over alleged breach of employment terms and dues.
Nearly four months after leaving the company, the employee filed an FIR in February 2019 alleging harassment and use of abusive language.
Counsel for the director argued that the FIR was filed as a retaliatory move after the company issued legal notices. It was contended that the allegations did not meet the legal threshold for sexual harassment.
The court was told that the remark in question, though inappropriate, occurred during a workplace disagreement and lacked any sexual intent or overt sexual conduct.
“The utterance… cannot be construed as sexual harassment,” the petitioner’s counsel argued, emphasizing that no allegations of physical contact, sexual advances, or requests for favours were made.
The State opposed the plea, stating that the allegations required trial and that the complainant’s statement had already been recorded.
The complainant maintained that the remark amounted to a sexually coloured comment and that it was made in a position of authority, causing humiliation.
Justice Kirti Singh examined whether the allegations, even if accepted at face value, constituted an offence under Section 354-A IPC.
The Court noted that the law on sexual harassment covers acts that are inherently sexual in nature, including unwelcome physical contact, demands for sexual favours, or sexually coloured remarks.
However, in this case, the Court found that the remark in question, though “uncouth and discourteous,” did not carry a sexual overtone.
“The expression… does not, in its ordinary sense, carry any sexual insinuation directed at the modesty or sexuality of the complainant,” the bench observed.
It further noted that the incident arose from a work-related disagreement and was an isolated instance, not part of any pattern of behaviour.
The Court also highlighted the delay in filing the FIR, noting that it was lodged months after the resignation and after exchange of legal notices.
Concluding that the essential ingredients of Section 354-A IPC were not satisfied, the Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 35 dated March 10, 2019, along with all subsequent proceedings.
However, the relief was made subject to the petitioner depositing ₹20,000 in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund at PGIMER, Chandigarh within one month.
Case Details
Case Title: Abhikshek Shah vs State of Haryana & Anr.
Case Number: CRM-M-36953-2019 (O&M)
Judge: Justice Kirti Singh
Decision Date: 18 April 2026
