The Bombay High Court recently made it clear that unwanted staring, insulting behaviour, or harassment at the workplace—though indecent and objectionable—does not come under Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with criminal voyeurism.

A Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a criminal application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The plea asked for the quashing of a First Information Report registered for alleged offences under Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code.

Workplace Allegations:

The case involved Abhijit Baswant Nigudkar, an employee of Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd., who was accused by a female colleague of inappropriate behaviour at work. The complainant said that the applicant often insulted her, avoided normal eye contact, and stared at her chest during meetings.

One such incident reportedly occurred on 14 November 2014 at the company’s Borivali office. The complainant felt uncomfortable and told her colleague Seema Sharma. Seema then emailed the issue to the Head of Department, Rakesh Pande, and also informed the HR Manager, who allegedly did not believe the complaint.

A few days later, on 21 November 2014, during another meeting at the Andheri office, the applicant allegedly started finding faults in the complainant’s work and insulted her publicly. After this, the company then initiated internal proceedings and called both the complainant and Seema Sharma for an inquiry.

An Internal Complaints Committee was set up under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, following the Vishaka guidelines. After its investigation, the committee cleared the applicant, saying there was no evidence of sexual harassment.

FIR Filed:

Despite this, the complainant filed an FIR under Section 354‑C IPC (voyeurism) at Borivali Police Station. The applicant then approached the Bombay High Court under Section 482 CrPC, asking the court to quash the FIR, arguing that the allegations did not meet the legal definition of voyeurism.

Law Explained:

The Bombay High Court explained that Section 354‑C IPC (voyeurism) applies only when a man watches or records a woman during a private act such as undressing, using a lavatory, or engaging in an intimate act—where she expects privacy. The law also applies if such images are shared without her consent.

Justice Amit Borkar held that ,

“The complaint does not state that the applicant watched the complainant while she was engaged in any private act. It does not say that any image of a private act was captured. It does not say that the complainant was in a place or condition where she was reasonably expected not to be observed and that the applicant nonetheless watched her in that prohibited setting. 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.”

Internal Report Not Key:

Court further stated :

“The existence of an internal finding in favour of the applicant only adds support to his stand, but the real ground for quashing is the absence of the statutory offence itself”

Not Voyeurism:

The bench concluded that ,

“Here, the substance is of alleged staring at the chest, insulting behaviour, and workplace harassment. These may at the highest amount to misconduct, indecency, or some other wrong, depending on the facts proved in proper proceedings. But they do not fit into the narrow mould of Section 354-C. To permit the prosecution to continue on such facts would be to ignore the clear language of the statute.”

Case Quashed:

Consequently, the Court held that allowing the case to continue on such allegations would be a misuse of the legal process. Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal application and quashed the proceedings.

CASE DETAILS : Abhijit Baswant Nigudkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:16818-DB)