2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 6383
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J
Son o Permanent residen Uttar Pradesh and/or presently residing at IIT Guwahati – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Crl. Petition. No. 362 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Z. Kamar
For the Respondents: D. Borpujari, D.P. Goswami
Mere touching without causing motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion does not constitute 'force' under Section 349 IPC, and absent intent, no case under Section 354 IPC is made out.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 349, 350, 351, 354 - Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty - Key elements: assault or use of criminal force, intent to outrage modesty - Definition of 'force' under Section 349 requires causing motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to the person as a whole, not mere touching - Definition of 'assault' under Section 351 requires gesture or preparation short of actual physical contact. (Paras 14-19)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 164, 482 - Inherent power to quash proceedings - Court's duty to look beyond averments in FIR when proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance - Overall circumstances and materials collected during investigation must be considered. (Paras 24-25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Professor at IIT Guwahati, was accused of sexual harassment under Section 354 IPC based on an FIR alleging that he held the complainant's hand and made inappropriate remarks. The complainant had previously participated in a departmental inquiry that exonerated the petitioner. The FIR was lodged two and a half months after the inquiry result.
Findings of Court:
No case under Section 354 IPC is made out against the petitioner. The impugned proceedings are quashed. The petition is allowed.
Issues: Whether the alleged acts constitute 'force' or 'assault' under Section 354 IPC; whether the criminal proceedings are an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere touching without causing motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion does not constitute 'force' under Section 349 IPC. The element of mens rea (intent to outrage modesty) is missing. The proceedings are frivolous and vexatious, instituted with ulterior motive for vengeance.
Result: Petition allowed. Proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and procedural history (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments of parties (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. statutory definitions of force, assault, and section 354 (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. precedents on ingredients and ulterior motive (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. application of law and final quashing order (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P.
Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mrs. D. Borpujari, learned
Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed seeking questioning of the proceedings of PRC No. 69/2024,
now pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kamrup at
Amingaon.
Page No.# 3/10
3. The prosecution story of the case is that on 03.05.2023 an online complaint received at
North Guwahati P.S through the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup where it was found that on
02.05.2023 complainant Miss
Gujrat sent e-mail to the DGP, Assam stating that she was working
on her startup idea under Atal Innovation Mission at AIC GUSEC, Ahmedabad and she
contacted Pro , IIT, Guwahati as her mentor.
Accordingly, she communicated him and on 18.05.2023 she came to IIT Guwahati to meet
him. But he was very busy due to NERC program and so he offered to drop her to her friend's
home at Panbazar by his car and will discuss on way. But, inside car, he said some weird
things to her. He held her hand for several times and also watched her lines in her palm. He
stopped the car in front of Kamakhya Temple and asked her to join her hands to pray Maa
Kamakhya before beginning of their journey and thus he sexually harassed her. Hence the
case.
4. Pursuant to the charge sheet, the learned JMFC, Kamrup, Amingaon took cognizance of
the offence under Section 354 IPC in the aforesaid case.
5. Challenging the said impugned order as well as the entire proceedings, the instant
petition has been preferred, whereby by Order dated 05.04.2024, further proceedings of the
PRC Case No. 69/2024 pending in the Court of JMFC, Kamrup, Amingaon was stayed by this
Court.
6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.
7. Mr. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused is a
Professor of IIT, Guwahati in the Department of Chemical Engineering and also the Dean,
Research & Development at IIT, Guwahati and is an expert in the field of cost effective
biodegradable plastic.
8. The FIR of the instant case is dated 11.2.2023 and the same was registered on
Page No.# 4/10
05.05.2023, as North Guwahati Police Station Case No. 51/2023 under Section 354 IPC.
9. Taking the Court to the background of the case, learned Senior Counsel, with reference
to the material on record submitted that the complainant had lodged an official complaint on
27.05.2022 against the petitioner upon the same allegations and after that an inquiry was
instituted by way of departmental proceeding, wherein the complainant as well as the
petitioner/accused were duly heard and thereafter the Inquiry Committee exonerated the
petitioner of any wrongdoing. The decision of the proceeding was communicated to the
complainant/victim on 24.11.2022 and thereafter, the FIR was lodged by her on 11.02.2023,
that is almost two and a half months later as she failed to get a favourable outcome in the
Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner. Thereafter, the victim’s statement was recorded
on 13.06.2023 under Section 164 CrPC and on the same day, the charge sheet was also filed.
10. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant due to vindictiveness
as the petitioner declined to share his knowledge or support the start-up business proposed
to be initiated by the complainant.
11. It is further submitted that the complainant/victim had on 18.05.2022 without any prior
intimation or appointment come to the IIT-G Campus for the second time to meet the
accused and convince him to become a partner in her start-up ventur