Staring at woman colleague's chest does not amount to 'voyeurism,' says Bombay HC

Staring at a woman colleague's chest in an office setting, can be morally wrong or indecent conduct of the man, but does not amount to the offence of voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Bombay High Court was quoted by Bar and Bench and Live Law as saying recently.

Section 354C in The Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines and punishes the offence of voyeurism. It says:

"Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Staring in an office environment does not fit this category.

The case in the Bombay High Court pertains to a complaint that alleged that during meetings, the accused did not maintain eye contact and instead stared at her body parts and made inappropriate comments, NDTV reported.

The company's internal complaints committee (ICC) had previously cleared the accused in this matter.

In this particular case, Justice Amit Borkar held that such actions are morally wrong but do not meet the legal criteria under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), NDTV reported.

According to the Indian Express, the court passed an order on April 8 on a criminal application by a man who was booked in 2015 by the Mumbai Police for the offence of voyeurism punishable under Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court had then set aside the First Information Report (FIR) and subsequent criminal proceedings against a senior executive of a private insurance company, noting that law cannot be stretched beyond plain words. Continuing the case would be an abuse of the legal process, the court noted.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed, "The allegation is only that he stared at her chest during office meetings. Unwanted staring, even if accepted as true, is not the same thing as voyeurism within the meaning of Section 354-C. The statute cannot be stretched beyond its plain words."

Delhi HC quashes voyeurism case against ice cream vendor

Last month, the Delhi High Court quashed an FIR registered against an ice cream vendor for voyeurism and stalking based on a compromise between the parties and appreciated his "benevolent gesture" to give ice cream to all personnel at Model Town police station.

According to a PTI report on March 22, Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that since there was a voluntary settlement in the matter, continuing the FIR, registered in 2018 against the petitioner would be an exercise in futility.

"Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.23/2018 dated 20.01.2018 registered at PS: Model Town under Sections 354(C)/354(D)/385/384 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed," the court said in the order passed on March 13.

The alleged victim said that pursuant to an agreement reached in January, the petitioner paid her a settlement amount of ₹45,000. She said she is now married, has a child, and had no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

The court stated that although it was "mindful" that the present FIR was registered for alleged offences of voyeurism, stalking and extortion, "much water has flown since," and the victim wanted to "move ahead in her new stable life."