Gauhati HC Quashes Section 354 IPC Case Against IIT Professor, Says Mere Hand Touch Without Mens Rea Not an Offence [Read Order]

Gauhati: The Gauhati High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code against a professor of IIT Guwahati, holding that mere touching of the complainant’s hand, in the absence of criminal force, assault, or the requisite mens rea, does not constitute the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma allowed a criminal petition challenging the order taking cognizance and the subsequent proceedings in PRC No. 69/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup at Amingaon.

The case arose from an FIR registered at North Guwahati Police Station on 05.05.2023, based on allegations that the petitioner, a Professor and Dean (Research & Development) at IIT Guwahati, had sexually harassed the complainant during a car journey by holding her hand, making certain remarks, and asking her to pray at the Kamakhya Temple. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken under Section 354 IPC.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, contending that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC. It was further submitted that the complainant had earlier raised identical allegations through an official complaint, which was inquired into by an internal committee of IIT Guwahati. After a full-fledged departmental inquiry with the participation of both parties, the petitioner was exonerated, and the outcome was communicated to the complainant on 24.11.2022. The FIR, however, was lodged more than two months thereafter.

The petitioner argued that the criminal proceedings were initiated vindictively after the complainant failed to secure a favourable outcome in the departmental inquiry, and that the FIR amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

Opposing the petition, the State and the complainant contended that the contents of the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC disclosed a prima facie case under Section 354 IPC, and therefore interference at the threshold stage was unwarranted.

The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory ingredients of Section 354 IPC, along with the definitions of “force”, “criminal force”, and “assault” under Sections 349, 350, and 351 IPC respectively. The Court observed that for an act to qualify as “force”, there must be motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion caused to the person as a whole, and not merely contact with a part of the body.

The Court held that mere touching, without causing any movement or restraint of the victim, does not satisfy the definition of “force” under Section 349 IPC. It further observed that once physical contact takes place, the act falls outside the scope of “assault” as defined under Section 351 IPC, which contemplates gestures or preparation short of physical contact.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the allegations in the FIR and the statement under Section 164 CrPC were confined to the holding of the complainant’s hand, without any allegation of force, restraint, or threatening gesture. The Court also found that the allegations did not disclose the requisite intention or knowledge necessary to attract Section 354 IPC.

Placing reliance on Supreme Court decisions, including Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings initiated with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance, particularly after failure in prior proceedings, warrant close scrutiny and can be quashed to prevent abuse of process.

The Court observed that the petitioner had already faced a full departmental inquiry on identical allegations and was exonerated, and that the belated registration of the FIR prima facie appeared to be retaliatory. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of the criminal justice system.

Holding that no offence under Section 354 IPC was made out even prima facie, the Court quashed the entire proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup at Amingaon.

Accordingly, the criminal petition was allowed.

Case Details:

• Case Title: V v. State of Assam & Anr.
• Court: Gauhati High Court
• Case No.: Crl. Petition No. 362 of 2024
• Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:1523
• Date of Reservation: 27 January 2026
• Date of Judgment: 5 February 2026
• Coram: Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
• Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Z. Kamar, Senior Advocate
• Counsel for the State: Mr. D. P. Goswami, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam
• Counsel for Respondent No. 2: Mrs. D. Borpujari, Legal Aid Counsel

[Read Order]