‘F*** Off’ Not Sexual Harassment: P&H High Court Quashes FIR Under Section 354-A IPC, Terms Workplace Remark Insufficient for Criminal Prosecution
Case Name: Abhikshek Shah v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 18.04.2026
Citation: CRM-M-36953-2019
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Kirti Singh
Held: The High Court held that a solitary abusive remark, devoid of sexual intent or overtone, does not constitute “sexual harassment” under Section 354-A IPC, and continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances amounts to abuse of process of law.
Summary: The petitioner sought quashing of FIR registered under Section 354-A IPC alleging sexual harassment arising out of workplace communication. The complainant, a Business Manager in the petitioner’s company, had resigned following an email exchange wherein the petitioner used the expression “f*** off” during a dispute regarding leave and attendance at an official event.
Subsequently, after a gap of over four months and following exchange of legal notices regarding employment terms and alleged breach of contract, the complainant lodged the FIR alleging harassment and use of derogatory language.
The High Court examined the statutory ingredients of Section 354-A IPC and noted that sexual harassment requires conduct involving sexual intent, such as unwelcome physical advances, demand for sexual favours, or sexually coloured remarks.
Upon analysing the context of the communication, the Court found that the remark in question, though inappropriate and discourteous, arose out of a work-related disagreement and lacked any sexual connotation. It observed that the expression did not carry any insinuation directed towards the modesty or sexuality of the complainant.
The Court further emphasized that criminal law cannot be invoked for isolated instances of rude or offensive language in absence of a pattern of conduct or sexual intent, as the penal provision is meant to address gender-based harassment of a sexual nature.
Relying on settled principles governing quashing under Section 482 CrPC, including the Bhajan Lal guidelines, the Court held that the allegations, even if taken at face value, failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence.
Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner. However, it imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to deposit ₹20,000/- in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh within one month. The Court held that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.