Section 354-C IPC | Staring At Woman’s Chest Not Voyeurism: Bombay High Court Says It Is Not A ‘Private Act’

The Bombay High Court has held that allegations of inappropriate staring or workplace misconduct, even if taken at face value, do not constitute the offence of voyeurism under Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless they involve watching or capturing a woman engaged in a “private act” in circumstances where she has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Voyeurism under Section 354-C of the IPC is the act of watching or capturing images of a woman engaged in a private act, where she has a reasonable expectation of privacy.It specifically targets intrusion into intimate or secluded situations, not general inappropriate behaviour in public or workplace settings.

The Court clarified that the provision is narrowly tailored to address intrusion into bodily privacy in intimate or secluded settings and cannot be invoked to criminalise general allegations of offensive behaviour in professional environments.

Justice Amit Borkar, sitting singly, allowed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the FIR registered against the applicant under Section 354-C IPC.

The Court held that the essential ingredients of voyeurism were not disclosed from the allegations and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, the FIR and all consequential proceedings, including the charge-sheet, were set aside.

The case arose from allegations made by a woman colleague against the applicant, with whom she worked in a professional setting.

It was alleged that during meetings and workplace interactions, the applicant engaged in inappropriate conduct, including staring at her chest, making objectionable remarks, and subjecting her to insulting behaviour.

The complaint also referred to incidents during office meetings in Borivali and Andheri, and subsequent internal escalation within the organisation.

The applicant, represented by Advocates Amol Patankar and Neil Chandiwala, contended that even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted in entirety, they did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 354-C IPC.

It was argued that the offence of voyeurism specifically requires watching or capturing the image of a woman engaged in a private act in circumstances where she would reasonably expect privacy.

The applicant submitted that no such allegation existed in the present case.

It was further pointed out that the complainant had earlier approached the employer, following which an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted in accordance with the law laid down in Vishaka and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The Committee conducted an inquiry and ultimately exonerated the applicant of the allegations.

Opposing the application, the State, represented by APP Yogesh N. Nakhwa, along with counsel for the complainant, submitted that the material collected during investigation, including witness statements, clearly indicated objectionable conduct on the part of the applicant.

It was argued that the applicant’s behaviour, including staring and remarks, was intended to outrage the modesty of the complainant and therefore attracted the offence alleged.

The Court, however, undertook a detailed examination of the statutory provision and emphasised that Section 354-C IPC is not a general provision covering all forms of inappropriate or offensive behaviour towards women.

It noted that the provision specifically criminalises watching or capturing images of a woman engaged in a “private act,” such as when intimate parts are exposed, or in situations like use of a lavatory or engagement in a sexual act not ordinarily done in public.

Applying this framework, the Court found that the allegations in the FIR did not indicate that the complainant was engaged in any private act, nor that the applicant had captured or attempted to capture any images.

The incidents described were stated to have occurred during office meetings, which are not private settings within the meaning of the provision.

The Court observed that while the allegations, if true, may amount to workplace misconduct or inappropriate behaviour, they do not fall within the specific contours of voyeurism as defined under law.

It cautioned against expanding the scope of penal provisions beyond their clear language and legislative intent.

The Bench further noted that criminal law cannot be invoked to convert every workplace grievance into an offence under Section 354-C IPC. It emphasised that the Court must examine the substance of the allegations rather than the label assigned to them, and in the present case, the substance did not disclose the offence alleged.

The Court also observed that even independently of the Internal Complaints Committee’s findings, the absence of essential statutory ingredients was sufficient to warrant quashing of the proceedings.

It held that permitting prosecution in such circumstances would amount to misuse of the criminal justice process.

Concluding that the FIR and accompanying material failed to establish the foundational requirements of the offence, the Court allowed the application and terminated all proceedings arising from the FIR.

Case Title: Abhijit Baswant Nigudkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Bench: Justice Amit Borkar

Date of Judgment: 08.04.2026