In a ruling that sharpens the legal boundaries between workplace misconduct and criminal liability, the Bombay High Court has held that staring at a woman colleague’s chest during office meetings however inappropriate, does not amount to the offence of voyeurism under 354-C of I.P.C
The judgment came in Abhijit Baswant Nigudkar v. State of Maharashtra, decided on 8 April 2026 by Justice Amit Borkar, who quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed under Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case dates back to 2014, when a woman employee accused a senior colleague of repeatedly staring at her chest during office meetings and avoiding eye contact in a manner she found uncomfortable and inappropriate. The complaint was initially examined by the company’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which reportedly did not find sufficient evidence to proceed.
Subsequently, a criminal case was registered under Section 354-C IPC—commonly referred to as the voyeurism provision.
Also read – ANAROCK appoints Sanjay Mishra as Group CHRO
At the heart of the case was the interpretation of Section 354-C IPC, which criminalises voyeurism. The law specifically targets acts such as watching or capturing the image of a woman engaged in a private act,doing so without her consent, and under circumstances where she has a reasonable expectation of privacy.The provision also penalises the dissemination of such images.
The High Court took a strict view of the statutory language, underscoring that criminal law cannot be expanded beyond its clearly defined scope.
Justice Borkar noted that the allegations,even if accepted in full did not involve any “private act,”any recording or capturing of images, or any setting where the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
An office meeting, the Court observed, is inherently a public or semi-public professional setting, not one protected by the privacy considerations envisioned under Section 354-C.
The Court made a crucial distinction:While the alleged behaviour may be “indecent” or amount to workplace misconduct, it does not satisfy the legal ingredients required to constitute voyeurism.
In quashing the FIR, the Court emphasised that not every objectionable act is a criminal offence under every provision. The ruling cautions against stretching penal statutes to cover conduct they were not designed to address.
At the same time, the judgment does not trivialise the complainant’s grievance. Instead, it implicitly reinforces that such conduct may still be actionable under workplace harassment laws,internal disciplinary mechanisms, or other relevant legal provisions, where applicable.
The decision is significant for two reasons.First, it reinforces the principle that criminal statutes must be interpreted strictly. Courts cannot broaden the scope of offences like voyeurism beyond what the legislature explicitly intended—namely, the invasion of privacy in intimate or private settings.
Second, it highlights the distinct but complementary roles of criminal law and workplace regulation. While the former addresses clearly defined offences, the latter is better equipped to deal with behavioural misconduct that, though serious, may not meet the threshold of a criminal charge.
The Bombay High Court’s ruling serves as a reminder that the law operates within defined contours. Inappropriate behaviour in professional spaces must be addressed—firmly and effectively—but through the right legal channels.
Misconduct, the Court has clarified, is not always synonymous with crime.
