In a significant ruling on the scope of voyeurism laws, the Bombay High Court set aside a criminal case against an employee accused of inappropriate workplace conduct. The Court clarified that not every act of alleged misconduct falls within the strict definition of voyeurism under criminal law.
Background of the Case
The case arose from allegations made by a woman colleague against the applicant, who worked with her in a corporate setting. According to the complaint, the accused allegedly stared at her chest during office meetings, made inappropriate remarks, and created a hostile work environment.
The complainant had earlier approached the company’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which conducted an inquiry into the allegations. However, the Committee ultimately did not find sufficient grounds against the applicant.
Subsequently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offence of voyeurism.
Counsel for the applicant argued that even if all allegations were accepted as true, they did not satisfy the essential ingredients of voyeurism under Section 354-C IPC. It was submitted that the law requires an element of intrusion into a woman’s private act or capturing images in such circumstances something entirely absent in this case.
On the other hand, the prosecution contended that the applicant’s conduct, including alleged staring and remarks, offended the modesty of the complainant and should be treated as a criminal offence.
Justice Amit Borkar closely examined the language of Section 354-C IPC and emphasized its limited and specific scope.
“The provision is not a general remedy for all forms of inappropriate behaviour,” the Court observed. “It applies only when a woman is watched or recorded during a private act where she reasonably expects privacy.”
The Court noted that:
- The complaint did not allege that the woman was engaged in any “private act”
- There was no claim of image capturing or recording
- The incidents occurred in office meetings, not in private or secluded settings
Importantly, the Court stated,
“Unwanted staring, even if accepted as true, is not the same thing as voyeurism within the meaning of Section 354-C.”
The judge also cautioned against stretching criminal provisions beyond their intended scope, observing that workplace grievances should not automatically be converted into serious criminal offences without meeting legal requirements.
The Court took note of the ICC report, which had exonerated the applicant. While acknowledging its relevance, the Court clarified that even without relying on the report, the case failed on legal grounds due to absence of essential ingredients of the offence.
Concluding that the allegations did not disclose a prima facie case under Section 354-C IPC, the Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the legal process.
The Court allowed the application and ordered:
- The FIR registered at Borivali Police Station be quashed
- All consequential proceedings, including any charge-sheet, be set aside
Case Details
Case Title: Abhijit Baswant Nigudkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Application No. 774 of 2015
Judge: Justice Amit Borkar
Decision Date: April 8, 2026
