Supreme Law News

Will Asking Female Colleague Out Is Sexual Harassment ?

A sessions court rejected the anticipatory bail pleas of a 42-year-old assistant manager and a 30-year-old sales manager of a real estate company who are accused of sexually harassing the “front office executive” after observing that telling a female colleague she had a beautiful figure and had maintained herself well and repeatedly asking her out amounted to using filthy language and outraging her modesty.

“There are several aspects involved in the case whereby custodial interrogation of the accused is essential; otherwise, the right to interrogate…by the investigation officer would be taken away, which would undoubtedly affect the prosecution’s case and, ultimately, the complainant’s case on merit,” Judge AZ Khan stated in two separate orders last week.

He stated that this is not a case where the accused can be released on anticipatory bail.

On April 24, the woman filed a complaint with the police, and the two were charged under Indian Penal Code Sections 354 for outraging a woman’s modesty, 354A for sexual harassment, 354D for stalking, and 509 for a word, gesture, or act intended to insult a woman’s modesty.

In court, both the woman and the firm were represented by solicitors. The prosecution claimed that witness statements and documents showed that the accused sexually harassed the woman between March 1 and April 14. “Madam, aapne khudko bahut maintain rakha hai… aapka figure bahut accha hai… Is it true, ma’am, that mere saath bahar jaane ke baare mai kuch socha ki nahi? (Madam, you have kept yourself in shape… your figure is very attractive… Have you considered going out with me)?”

In her office, the woman complained. She then went to the police station.

On May 2, the accused filed bail pleas. They denied the allegations and claimed they had been falsely implicated. The prosecution opposed their pleas, claiming that their interrogation in custody was necessary.

However, in the order pertaining to the sales manager, the judge stated that his father attempted to pressurise the complainant and other employees. “No doubt, the offence is serious and against the woman,” the judge said in both orders.

“The present accused, along with the other accused, alleged to have outraged the modesty and uttered such filthy language towards the complainant in the working place and tried to pressurise the complainant and employers.”

#sexualharassment #sexualassault

Your free access to Supreme Law News has expired

Supreme Law News Premium

Why should you subscribe?

* Enjoy our website without interruptions from advertisements

* Receive daily newsletters

* Receive real-time Telegram/Whatsapp news updates

* Download original judgments / orders / notifications / circulars, etc

* Enjoy exclusive entry fees to the Simplified series. (Webinars, seminars, masterclasses, etc.)

( special offer)

Subscribe Now

For further details contact:

Dr. Ajay Kummar Pandey

( LLM, MBA, (UK), PhD, AIMA, AFAI, PHD Chamber, ICTC, PCI, FCC, DFC, PPL, MNP, BNI, ICJ (UK), WP, (UK), MLE, Harvard Square, London, CT, Blair Singer Institute, (USA), Dip. in International Crime, Leiden University, the Netherlands )

Advocate & Consultant Supreme Court of India, High Courts & Tribunals.