A complaint lacking voyeurism’s ingredients cannot sustain an employer’s prosecution for an employee’s alleged act.

Respondent No. 2 complained that a person working at the petitioner’s bar and restaurant had photographed a worker at a neighbouring construction site.

The police registered Crime No. 329/2022 against the petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 354C and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The petitioner sought quashing, contending that the complaint did not disclose the ingredients of the offences and, in any event, the alleged act was attributed to an unidentified worker, not the petitioner.

The Court noted the surrounding dispute between the neighbouring property owners and that the petitioner’s premises were owned by another person.

1. Whether the complaint disclosed the ingredients of an offence under Section 354C of the IPC against the petitioner

2. Whether criminal proceedings could be maintained against the petitioner for an alleged act by an unidentified worker, on a theory of vicarious liability

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, invoking the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings.

The alleged offences were under Sections 354C and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The Court reasoned that a complaint must disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence to sustain proceedings and that the petitioner could not be proceeded against merely on the basis of an alleged act by an employee without a basis for attributing criminal liability to the petitioner.

No precedent was cited.

On reading the complaint, the Court found that it disclosed no ingredients sufficient to attract Section 354C of the IPC and did not identify the person who allegedly took the photograph.

Even assuming that a worker from the petitioner’s establishment took the photograph, the Court held that the complaint did not justify proceeding against the petitioner as the establishment’s owner on a theory of vicarious liability.

The police could, at most, have registered a case against an unknown person and investigated.

quashed the pending proceedings in Crime No. 0329/2022 of Hanumanthnagar Police Station against the petitioner.