New Delhi: A Delhi Court has observed that the usage of “F**K off” is a vulgar American slang and a “sexually coloured” remark which is not used in Indian Society when asking anyone to leave.
“The said word is an American vulgar slang. The said word is a offensive word,” Additional Sessions Judge Sanjay Sharma of Tis Hazari Courts observed recently while dealing a sexual harassment case.
“…In Indian society, schools or colleges, this word is not used to ask anyone to leave or go away. Moreover, given the facts and circumstances of the incident, it cannot be said that the petitioner was merely intending to ask the complainant to leave or go away. In ordinary sense, the said word is abusive, offensive and humiliating,” the order said.
The court was dealing a revision petition, which was challenging a Mahila Court order that framed charges against a man (petitioner) under Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (insulting modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
As per the woman’s complaint, the accused man used abusive language, including ‘f**k off’ and ‘bazaru aurat’ — a woman of bad character — and threatened her. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he did not make any ‘sexually coloured remark’ and merely asked the complainant to leave the premises by stating the said word.
He contended that the meaning of the said word is defined in Cambridge Dictionary (UK) as ‘…To leave or go away, used especially as a rude way of telling someone to go away…”
After the submissions, the court held that it cannot find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the dictionary meaning of the said word is defined as ‘to leave or go away’.
The said word is a ‘sexually coloured remark’, the court stated.
“There is a prima facie case that the petitioner used the said word with the intent to insult modesty of the complainant,” the court averred.
The complainant has specifically stated that the petitioner asked her to shut up and sit in a corner. She has specifically stated that the petitioner along with other persons threatened her and her family and also threatened to throw them out of the house.
“There is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner for offences under Section 354A/509 (Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment and insult the modesty of a woman) and 506 IPC (Punishment for criminal intimidation),” the order read.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
(IANS)
