Pulling hair, pushing a woman during quarrel is not molestation, says Bombay HC

MUMBAI: Merely pulling a woman’s hair or pushing her during a quarrel does not amount to outraging her modesty, the Bombay high court said on Monday while dismissing a petition seeking invocation of section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code against five disciples of self-proclaimed godman Dhirendra Shastri aka Bageshwar Baba.
The division bench of justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan noted that molestation must include an intention to outrage a woman’s modesty and refused to issue orders to book the five disciples – Abhijit Karanjule, Mayuresh Kulkarni, Ishwar Gunjal, Avinash Pandey and Laxman Pant – under IPC section 354.
The disciples had allegedly asked Nitin Upadhyay, the petitioner, to make a video claiming he had asked for ₹3.5 crore from a Rajasthan-based follower of the godman to organise a programme. This was after a viral video surfaced in which the godman allegedly demanded ₹3.5 crore for organising an event in any state.
When Upadhyay refused to make such a video, the disciples allegedly assaulted him and “molested” his wife by pulling her hair and pushing her; they also slapped his minor child. Upadhyay subsequently lodged a complaint with Mumbai Police, based on which an offence was registered under section 323 (causing simple hurt) and other relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
On Monday, the court rejected Upadhyay’s petition for slapping the charge of outraging his wife’s modesty, observing that “the woman has to say specifically what was done to outrage her modesty. Merely pulling hair and using criminal force does not mean outraging modesty.”
The petitioner tried to buttress his case by claiming that his wife had stated that the accused had behaved badly with her. The court responded by saying that in all rape cases, survivors usually accuse their perpetrators of “bad behaviour”, but they also explain in detail how this was done. “In this case, she only uses the words ‘bad behaviour’ but there is no explanation at all as to what it means,” the bench said.
The court also expressed satisfaction with the investigating agency for invoking the right sections against the accused and refused to intervene any further.