The Kerala High Court has held that merely tapping or beating a student on her palm during a class, in the absence of the requisite intention to outrage her modesty, would not attract the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Jobin Sebastian quashed the criminal proceedings against a visiting faculty member accused of hitting a female student’s palm while taking a class at the School of Drama and Fine Arts, Thrissur.
The Court found that even if the allegation against the petitioner was accepted at face value, the circumstances stated in the First Information Statement did not disclose the necessary mens rea for an offence under Section 354 IPC.
Background
The criminal case arose from an incident dated November 21, 2021. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was taking a class for the de facto complainant at the School of Drama and Fine Arts College, Thrissur, when he beat her on the palm. The prosecution alleged that this amounted to outraging her modesty.
The Head of the Department was also arrayed as the second accused on allegations that, after the student complained about the incident, he used obscene words during a telephone conversation with her with the intention of insulting her modesty. The petitioner was booked in Crime No. 209 of 2022 of Thrissur West Police Station for offences under Sections 354 and 354A IPC.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR, final report and further proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was an academician in the field of drama and theatre arts who had been invited as visiting faculty to conduct an orientation class on Early Malayalam Theatre.
According to him, he noticed the complainant sitting in a drowsy condition during the class and gave a trivial beat on her palm only to awaken her. It was argued that the criminal case was subsequently lodged against him and that the ingredients of Section 354 IPC were not disclosed even from a plain reading of the First Information Statement.
The petitioner also pointed out that the second accused had already been exonerated by the High Court in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. The Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the plea.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court first noted that its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly and cautiously, either to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.
It observed that proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of an offence. At the same time, the Court said such jurisdiction cannot be used to conduct a detailed examination of evidence or a mini-trial.
The Court found it relevant that, according to the First Information Statement itself, the alleged incident took place during a class in the presence of several other students.
On the requirements of Section 354 IPC, the Court stressed that intention to outrage the modesty of a woman is an essential ingredient of the offence.
“Therefore, the intention to outrage the modesty of the woman is sine qua non for attracting the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.”
Applying that requirement to the case, the Court noted that the allegation was limited to the petitioner beating the complainant on her palm while she was attending the class. The petitioner’s specific case was that he had acted only to wake her from a drowsy state.
The Court held that, even if the alleged act was accepted at face value, the circumstances described in the First Information Statement did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 354 IPC because the necessary intention to outrage the complainant’s modesty was absent.
Justice Sebastian further observed:
“The allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the requisite mens rea necessary to constitute an offence under Section 354 of the IPC.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 738 of 2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, insofar as they concerned the petitioner, exercising its powers under Section 528 BNSS.
Case Title: Raja Varier v. State of Kerala & Another
Case No.: Crl.M.C. No. 5421 of 2026
Bench: Justice Jobin Sebastian
Date: September 22, 2026
