The Court clearly stated that although the remark was inappropriate, there was no criminal intent behind it, especially since it was made in the context of improving staff performance.
Bombay: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that a bank manager’s inappropriate remark to a female subordinate — though disgraceful — does not amount to a criminal offense under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with insulting the modesty of a woman.
During a performance review meeting at the State Bank of India (SBI), Bhandara, on August 11, 2021, the then Assistant General Manager, Satyaswarup Haridas Meshram, reportedly told a female Senior Clerk that she should “convince the customer as she convinces her husband”. This comment led to a First Information Report (FIR) filed more than a year later, on November 14, 2022.
A division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Pravin Patil quashed the charge sheet against the SBI manager.
The Court clearly stated that although the remark was inappropriate, there was no criminal intent behind it, especially since it was made in the context of improving staff performance.
“Considering the purpose of the meeting dated 11/08/2021 and reasons to utter such words during the meeting, [it] do[es] not show any intention of the applicant to insult the modesty of the complainant. Particularly, when the whole object and purpose of such a conversation of the applicant with the complainant was to see that her performance should be improved while performing her official duties,” the Court said.
The Court also made it clear that the comments were not meant to degrade the woman, but rather to push her to work better.
“After going through the narration of such incidences, it appears that whatever words uttered by the applicant were for the better administration of the Bank, though said words can be said to be at the most disgraceful,” the Court observed.
“In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that even if the allegations made in the First Information Report are taken on its face value, no offense constitutes as alleged under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code,” the Court held.
The FIR not only mentioned the August 11 remark but also alleged further inappropriate behaviour on August 28 and September 16, 2022. The female employee accused the AGM of repeated misconduct. However, the Court said that even when all the allegations were considered as true, there was no sufficient evidence of criminal intent under Section 509 IPC.
Advocate AP Modak, appearing for the SBI Manager, argued that Section 509 requires clear intent to insult a woman’s modesty — and no such intention was present in this case. He stressed that the comment was made only to encourage better performance at work.
On the other hand, Advocate Ayushi Dangre, appearing for the complainant, along with Additional Public Prosecutor Mayuri Deshmukh, argued that the remark was deliberate and insulting, and therefore, should be treated as a criminal offence.
Still, the Court disagreed and said there was no material on record to prove the manager had any knowledge or intention to insult the woman.
The Court ruled in favour of the SBI Manager and quashed the case, stating that continuing the criminal trial would be an abuse of the legal process.
Case Title: Satyaswarup Meshram v State of Maharashtra
Read Order
