Vulgarisms targeted at gender don't constitute ‘outraging modesty’: Bombay HC

The court declined to quash an FIR against a building resident accused of “outraging the modesty” of a fellow resident, among other charges

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday declined to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against a building resident accused of “outraging the modesty” of a fellow resident, among other charges. The complainant had initially filed an FIR under Sections 354, 306, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The parties involved in the petition reside in a Colaba building and have known each other since 1980. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

A bench comprising Justice Neela Gokhale and Justice A.S. Gadkari removed sections 354 and 306 of the IPC but maintained that an offence under Section 509 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act was prima facie established in the FIR.

The parties involved in the petition reside in a Colaba building and have known each other since 1980. The complainant's mother had chaired the co-operative housing society since 1942. When her mother became unable to manage the society's affairs, the petitioner allegedly assumed the chairman's role without an election, drawing strong objections from other residents.

According to the complainant, she received an email from the petitioner's account stating that no one would heed her opinions even if she "streaked across Mumbai or squatted in the nude on Nandgaon's Beach". This email was also sent to other society residents. The complainant reportedly received two subsequent emails, one of which included a death threat. She then filed a complaint with the cybercrime investigation cell of the Mumbai crime branch, leading to the FIR's registration.

The petitioner's advocate argued that the friction between the parties stemmed from the respondent's business venture, with the dispute having travelled from the High Court of London to the Bombay High Court. He contended that while the remarks were in poor taste, they did not constitute the alleged offences.

The respondent's advocate countered that the petitioner habitually circulated threatening and defamatory emails, tarnishing individuals' and families' reputations for financial gain. He maintained that the emails, when read in their entirety, were highly derogatory and insulting to the petitioner's modesty.

"The purpose of law is not to allow the offender to sneak out of the meshes of law", the court noted. It observed that the emails were self-evident, demonstrating an intent to insult the petitioner. The court further remarked that the underlying meaning and intent of the statements were clearly gender-linked and sufficient to outrage her modesty.

The bench concluded by dismissing the petition, affirming that the case warranted further investigation under the remaining sections of the FIR.