The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a senior State Bank of India officer under Section 509 IPC, observing that the alleged remark made during a staff review meeting—“convince the customer as you convince your husband”—though disgraceful, was not uttered with the intent to insult the modesty of the complainant. The Court held that the essential ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 509 IPC were not satisfied.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Pravin S. Patil on 23 April 2025, in Criminal Application (APL) No. 736 of 2023 filed by Satyaswarup Haridas Meshram.
Background:
The applicant, who was posted as an Assistant General Manager (AGM) in State Bank of India, filed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of Charge Sheet No. 152 of 2023 dated 16 June 2023, arising from FIR No. 565 of 2022 dated 14 November 2022, registered with Police Station Bhandara, District Bhandara under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant, a Senior Clerk at SBI’s Bhandara branch, alleged that during a review meeting held on 11 August 2021, the applicant, dissatisfied with her performance, made the following remark:
“You should convince the customer as you convince your husband.”
She claimed that this remark insulted her modesty. The FIR further referred to incidents on 28 August 2022 and 16 September 2022, but no similarly objectionable gestures or words were attributed to the applicant in those instances.
Arguments by the Applicant:
The applicant, represented by Advocate A.P. Modak, contended that:
- The essential ingredients under Section 509 IPC were not present.
- The remark was made during a formal review meeting aimed at improving performance and did not contain any intent to insult.
- There was no intrusion upon the privacy of the complainant.
- The FIR was lodged after more than a year from the alleged incident of 11 August 2021.
- The words may have been disgraceful, but not criminal in nature under Section 509.
Arguments by the State and Complainant:
Opposing the plea, APP Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh and Advocate Ms. Ayushi Dangre for the complainant argued that:
- The words were “insulting and offensive” and were made in the presence of colleagues.
- The intention to insult the modesty of the woman could be inferred from the nature of the remark.
- A reasonable person would interpret the statement as a deliberate affront to a woman’s dignity.
They relied on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Varun Bhatia v. State & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5288, and the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Major Singh, 1966 Supp SCR 286, to argue that:
“The test of the offence was not the subjective reaction of the woman, but whether a reasonable man would think that the act was done with the intention of outraging the modesty of the woman.”
Legal Analysis by the Court:
The Bench summarised the essential ingredients of Section 509 IPC as follows:
“(1) Intention to insult the modesty of a woman;
(2) The insult must be caused by:
(a) uttering any words, or making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object intending it to be heard/seen by the woman; or
(b) intruding upon the privacy of such woman.”
Quoting the Delhi High Court in Varun Bhatia, the Court reaffirmed that:
“The cornerstone of this provision is the requirement of intent, where the accused must possess a deliberate intention to affront or insult the modesty of a woman. This intent sets apart ordinary speech or actions from those that amount to an offence under Section 509.”
Referring to State of Punjab v. Major Singh, the Bench cited:
“Intention or knowledge is the ingredient of the offence and not the woman’s feelings. The question in each case must be: Will a reasonable man think that the act was done with the intention of outraging the modesty of the woman or with the knowledge that it was likely to do so?”
Findings and Conclusion:
The Court noted the following critical facts:
- The complainant lodged the FIR after more than a year from the first alleged incident.
- There was no material to suggest that the remark was made with criminal intent to insult the complainant’s modesty.
- The remark was made in a workplace context during a performance review by a senior officer.
“Considering the purpose of meeting dated 11/08/2021 and reasons to utter such words during the meeting do not show any intention of the applicant to insult the modesty of the complainant.”
Regarding the other two incidents (28 August 2022 and 16 September 2022), the Court observed:
“At the most, it can be said that the words used are disgraceful. But, in any case, those cannot be considered as words insulting modesty of the complainant.”
The Bench concluded:
“Even if the allegations made in the First Information Report are taken on its face value, no offence constitutes as alleged under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code.”
Final Order:
Accordingly, the Court passed the following order:
“Regular Criminal Case No. 182 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara… is hereby quashed and set aside against the applicant.”
