Sections 74 to 79 BNS — Outraging Modesty, Sexual Harassment and Stalking

What replaced what

The Penal Code kept these offences in two different chapters — the assault provisions in one, and Section 509 among the intimidation and insult provisions in another. The Sanhita gathers the whole of Chapter V under one heading, so Section 509 now sits alongside the offences it was always related to. That is a structural change, not a substantive one, but it is why the numbers moved so far.

And the three numbers people confuse these with:

The change nobody is reporting

Because the punishments are identical, page after page concludes there is nothing to say. That is the wrong conclusion. The BNSS First Schedule reclassified three of these offences, and one of those changes is severe.

Look at what that does to Section 75(3). The offence is "sexually coloured remarks". The maximum sentence is one year. And it is now non-bailable, and triable by the same court that tries murder.

We have verified this classification against the National Crime Records Bureau's reproduction of the Schedule and three further independent sources, all agreeing. If you are told otherwise, ask to see the Schedule entry.

Section 74 — outraging modesty

Section 74 has no sub-sections. It is the everyday molestation charge.

Two features do a great deal of work. The one-year minimum means a court has no discretion to go below it on conviction, and community service is not available anywhere in this group. And the mental element is stated in the alternative — intending to outrage modesty or knowing it to be likely. The prosecution does not have to prove a purpose; a knowledge of likelihood is enough.

Section 75 — sexual harassment

Section 75 has three sub-sections. 75(1) sets out four kinds of conduct; 75(2) and 75(3) attach two different punishments to them.

Clause (i) has three cumulative requirements, and the third is frequently skipped over. There must be physical contact and advances; they must be unwelcome; and the sexual overtures must be explicit. That word "explicit" is doing real work on the plain text — an ambiguous or merely implied overture does not answer the description. We have not found a Supreme Court judgment construing it, so we are stating the statutory elements and not inventing a judicial gloss that does not exist.

Clause (ii) is complete on the demand or request alone. No threat, no quid pro quo, and no physical contact is required. This is the limb that maps most directly onto workplace harassment.

Section 76 — intent to disrobe

Section 76 covers assault or criminal force to a woman, or abetment of such an act, with the intention of disrobing her or compelling her to be naked. The inclusion of abetment within the section itself is worth noting — a person who did not lay a hand on anyone can be charged under it directly.

Section 77 — voyeurism

Section 77 covers watching, or capturing the image of, a woman engaged in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed — and separately, disseminating such an image. It carries two Explanations.

The second Explanation is the one that decides most modern cases. Where a woman consented to an image being captured but not to its being disseminated to third persons, the dissemination is an offence under this section. Consent to the taking is not consent to the sharing, and the section says so expressly.

Section 78 — stalking, including online

Section 78 has two sub-sections and three provisos, all carried over unchanged.

78(1) defines two kinds of stalking:

• (i) Following a woman and contacting, or attempting to contact, her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest.
• (ii) Monitoring the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication.

These two limbs are routinely blurred, and the distinction is real. Clause (ii) uses the verb monitors — it requires surveillance of her use, not merely contacting her online. Repeated unwanted messaging sits more naturally in clause (i). And clause (i) contains an express statutory element that is often missed: a clear indication of disinterest. Absent a communicated refusal, that limb is not made out on the text.

The three provisos. Conduct is not stalking if the man proves that it was pursued for preventing or detecting crime and he had been entrusted with that responsibility by the State; or that it was pursued under any law, or to comply with a condition or requirement imposed under any law; or that in the particular circumstances it was reasonable and justified.

Section 79 — words, gestures and intruding on privacy

Section 79 is the residual provision, and it is much wider than people assume — it covers uttering words, making a sound or gesture, exhibiting an object, and intruding upon a woman's privacy.

What the courts require. A Calcutta High Court decision of 2025 held that mere allegations of harassment or abuse at a workplace, without specific details or the essential ingredients being made out, do not constitute this offence. Pleading in generalities — that someone was "harassed" or "abused", without particulars of the conduct and the intent — will not sustain the charge. That is worth knowing on both sides: it tells a complainant what to set out, and it tells a person facing a vague FIR what to say.

The full classification table

The three-year clock

This is the most useful single fact on the page, and we could not find it stated on any competitor page at all.

The Sanhita bars a court from taking cognizance after a limitation period, on a ladder: six months where the offence carries fine only; one year where the imprisonment does not exceed one year; three years where it exceeds one year but not three. Above three years there is no limitation. There is no carve-out anywhere in that provision for offences against women — we looked for one specifically, and it does not exist.

Where this bites hardest is workplace harassment, which is very often raised years later, after the woman has left the job. A Section 75 complaint about something that happened four years ago needs an application for extension before anything else. And it cuts the other way too: a person facing a stale Section 75 or Section 79 FIR has a limitation defence, and it should be raised at the charge or discharge stage rather than saved for the end of the trial.

Section 74 or Section 79 — where the line is

This is the most practically useful distinction on the page, because the two sections lead to completely different cases.

What "modesty" means in law

The word carries a specific legal meaning, and it is settled.

The foundational authority is a Supreme Court decision of 1967, State of Punjab v. Major Singh. The test is objective, not subjective: modesty means accepted notions of womanly modesty, not what the particular woman felt at the time. The question is whether a reasonable person would think the act was intended to, or was known to be likely to, outrage the modesty of the woman. The offence turns on the accused's intention or knowledge, not on the complainant's reaction.

The Court also held, on the facts of that case, that the age of the woman is immaterial — a female of any age possesses modesty capable of being outraged. Later decisions developed the same idea: the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex, and modesty is an attribute associated with women as a class rather than a quality of the individual complainant.

A well-known decision of the 1990s established that conduct of this kind at a social gathering can constitute both Section 354 and Section 509 of the old Code, and that such an FIR is not to be quashed as trivial. We have not been able to verify that judgment's citation from a primary source, so we describe the proposition and leave the citation to be confirmed.

The rights a complainant actually has

The Sanhita's procedure code contains a set of protections that apply specifically to Sections 74 to 79. Most complainants never use them, because nobody tells them.

What does not apply — correcting the record

Three protections are asserted for these offences on page after page, and none of them applies. A complainant who relies on them will be disappointed at exactly the wrong moment.

We would rather tell you the protection has to be asked for than let you believe it arrives automatically. If privacy matters to you in a Section 74 or Section 77 case, make the application; the power exists and it is discretionary, which means it is available for the asking with reasons.

The preliminary enquiry, and why it matters here

Under the old Code, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had settled that registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence, and that a preliminary inquiry was permissible only in narrow categories and only to see whether a cognizable offence was disclosed — not to test the merits.

The Sanhita departs from that. It allows a police officer, with the prior approval of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent, to conduct a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days to see whether a prima facie case exists — for cognizable offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven — even where a cognizable offence is disclosed. The Supreme Court considered this in 2025 and accepted that it is a significant departure from the earlier position: the enquiry precedes registration, and if a prima facie case is found the officer should immediately register an FIR.

The sharpest exposure is Section 79, which is constituted entirely by words, sounds and gestures. The Supreme Court's reasoning in the 2025 case was that for offences in this band based on spoken or written words it will always be appropriate to exercise the option of an enquiry. So a woman complaining under Section 79 may lawfully face up to fourteen days before any FIR is registered. The odd result is that the lesser verbal offence, Section 75(3), falls below the threshold and so gets faster registration than the greater one.

If you are told an enquiry is being conducted, three things are worth knowing: it is capped at fourteen days; it requires the prior approval of a DSP-rank officer; and if registration is then refused, the route is a written application to the Superintendent of Police, and thereafter an application to the Magistrate.

Where to go in Delhi

Any police station. You are not required to find the "correct" one — a Zero FIR may be registered anywhere and transferred to the station with jurisdiction. Because these sections are expressly named, your information must be recorded by a woman officer. And you cannot be compelled to come in at all; you may require to be seen where you live.

The Special Police Unit for Women and Children. This is an official Delhi Police unit operating across all Delhi districts. It handles complaints relating to matrimonial matters and crimes against women, and runs counselling, mediation and legal-awareness work. It publishes a complaints email address on its own site.

What a Crime Against Women Cell is, and is not

This is the point most Delhi pages get wrong, and being precise about it saves people weeks.

What a CAW Cell does: it receives written complaints from women, counsels the complainant about her rights and the process, appoints an enquiry officer, issues request letters inviting both parties for conciliation, attempts reconciliation — particularly in matrimonial matters — and if reconciliation fails, forwards the matter for registration of an FIR.

What a CAW Cell cannot do:

• It cannot investigate. The Delhi High Court has held that investigation in any crime can be done only after registration of an FIR.
• It cannot itself register an FIR. It operates at the pre-FIR stage only.
• It cannot compel attendance. It issues request letters, not summons, and has no authority to secure anybody's presence by coercion or threat.
• It has no power of arrest.

Which court

Delhi has eleven district courts housed in seven complexes — Tis Hazari, Patiala House, Karkardooma, Rohini, Dwarka, Saket and Rouse Avenue. Sections 74, 78 and 79 are tried by a Magistrate. Sections 75, 76 and 77 are committed to a Court of Session.

Reporting online in Delhi

The honest answer is limited, and it is better to know it in advance.

• Delhi Police online registration covers theft, motor vehicle theft and lost articles, plus missing-person registration. There is a general complaint-lodging portal, but a submission through it is a complaint, not an FIR.
• The national cyber crime portal has two streams — one for crimes relating to women and children, and one for other cybercrimes. Its own published answers say that the women-and-children stream is specifically for child sexual abuse material and sexually explicit content of certain kinds, with an anonymous reporting option; online stalking, voyeurism and general online harassment fall under the other stream. Critically, the portal states that a complaint can be withdrawn before it is converted into an FIR — which confirms that the two are not the same thing.
• The Delhi Police cyber unit has its own reporting page. We were not able to read it directly, so we are not describing its scope.

What that means practically. Online reporting in Delhi is a route to lodging a complaint, not to registering an FIR, for these offences. It is genuinely useful for creating a dated record and for preserving cyber-enabled evidence. It is not a substitute for going to a police station, and it should not be presented as one.

The workplace law, running in parallel

Where the conduct happened at work, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 runs alongside the criminal law. They are independent remedies and a woman may use both.

Where the person is under eighteen, or married

Under eighteen. Where the person concerned is a child, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 applies, and its offences run alongside or displace these sections. Two provisions govern the interaction: where an act is an offence both under that Act and under the Sanhita, the offender is liable to whichever punishment is greater in degree; and that Act is in addition to, not in derogation of, other laws, overriding to the extent of any inconsistency. The Supreme Court confirmed in 2025 that the second of those cannot be read so as to override the first. Procedurally the case goes to a Special Court, not to the ordinary Magistrate or Sessions court, which is the practical reason the distinction matters when deciding where to go.

Married or related. Sections 74 to 79 are not displaced by marriage or by a relationship. A husband, a relative, a partner or a neighbour can all be charged under Section 74 or Section 79, and in Delhi it is common for a matrimonial FIR to include Section 85 and Section 74 together. Running in parallel on the civil side is the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is a civil remedy producing protection, residence, monetary and custody orders — the only criminal offence it creates is breach of a protection order.

Settlement, compounding and quashing

Only Section 79 can be compounded, and only with the permission of the Court, and only by the woman whom it was intended to insult or whose privacy was intruded upon. Sections 74, 75, 76, 77 and 78 are not compoundable at all.

For the non-compoundable sections, a settlement does not end the case. The only route is a quashing petition in the High Court under the inherent power — our page on quashing an FIR under Section 528 BNSS sets out how that petition runs. But the Supreme Court's own guidance is that the inherent power is not to be exercised in prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences, or offences of mental depravity; and courts are markedly more reluctant to quash where the offence is against a woman's bodily integrity. That exclusion is regularly invoked to refuse quashing in Section 74 and Section 76 cases.

There is also recent authority that the victim must be a party to the settlement for quashing — the informant's settlement alone is not enough. That matters where a third party, an employer or a relative, purports to settle on someone's behalf. We have taken that from a case report rather than the judgment itself, so treat it as the direction of travel and have it checked.

On the question of false implication

A page like this should present both sides, and the authority does.

In 2026 the Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 74, 77 and 79 arising from a private message between classmates, holding that there was neither stalking nor a voyeuristic act nor anything amounting to outraging modesty. It is one of the earliest reported decisions using the new numbering and it shows that these sections are not to be stretched to cover innocuous communications.

Against that sits the interpretive approach described earlier — that harassment allegations are to be read in context and not defeated by hyper-technicality. Both are good law and both should be in view. We are not going to frame this area as one of routine misuse, because the authority does not support that framing.

Legal aid and victim compensation

Free legal aid, with no income test, because you are a woman. The Delhi State Legal Services Authority states expressly that women of any income group are eligible. This follows from the Legal Services Authorities Act, which makes a woman or a child eligible as a category, independent of means. Income ceilings apply to other categories — around three lakh a year for the general category and four lakh for senior citizens and transgender persons — but they do not apply to women. Pages that apply the three-lakh ceiling to women are wrong, and it is a costly error because it stops people from applying. Access is through the legal aid wing, the District Legal Services Authority at any court complex, or the legal services clinics.

Victim compensation — an honest answer. The Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2018 covers victims of crime who require rehabilitation, and applications are decided by the District Legal Services Authority. The Authority is to complete its inquiry and award within two months, and may direct immediate free first aid or medical treatment. Applications may come on the recommendation of the Station House Officer, on a court's order, or directly to the District Legal Services Authority. Claims must be made within three years of the offence or the conclusion of the trial, and minors receive fifty per cent above the scheduled amounts.

If you have been accused

1. Read the section and sub-section on the FIR, not just the number. Section 75(3) carries a maximum of one year and is still non-bailable and Sessions-triable. Section 79 is bailable and compoundable. The difference between them decides everything that follows.
2. If Section 75, 76 or 77 is on the FIR, deal with bail first. This surprises people — including some practitioners — because the equivalent Penal Code section was bailable and Magistrate-triable. Anticipatory bail is the thing to consider before an arrest, not after one.
3. Check the limitation. Sections 75, 79 and a first offence under 77 or 78 are barred after three years; Section 75(3) after one. This is a real defence and it belongs at the charge or discharge stage.
4. Sections 74 and 76 carry mandatory minimum sentences of one year and three years. There is no discretion to go below them on conviction, and community service is not available anywhere in this group.
5. If stalking is alleged, plan the proviso evidence. The provisos put the burden on the accused to prove the exception. "Reasonable and justified in the circumstances" has to be evidenced.
6. A CAW Cell request letter is not a summons. You are not legally compelled to attend and the Cell cannot arrest you. Attending is usually the sensible course — but you should know the difference before you decide.
7. Know what can and cannot be settled. Only Section 79 is compoundable. Everything else needs a High Court petition, and the courts are reluctant where bodily integrity is involved.

The mistakes that cost the most

1. Letting the three-year limitation run while trying to resolve things informally or through a workplace committee. This is the commonest and the most irreversible.
2. Assuming the workplace deadline is the only deadline. Three months there; three years criminally. They are different clocks and missing one does not end the other.
3. Going only to a CAW Cell for a molestation, stalking or harassment complaint. There is no requirement to, and it can cost weeks.
4. Treating an online complaint as an FIR. It is not, and the portal says so.
5. Never asking for the Magistrate's statement. It is expressly provided for these sections and it is the single strongest protection a complainant has.
6. Expecting in-camera proceedings automatically. They are not automatic for these sections; the application has to be made.
7. Not asking for the progress report at ninety days. The duty exists and almost nobody invokes it.
8. Deleting the account, the messages or the device in distress. In a Section 77 or 78 case that is the evidence, and the certificate requirements for electronic records are now strict.
9. Assuming the ₹3 lakh legal aid ceiling applies. It does not apply to women, and this error stops people from applying at all.
10. Relying on a page that says Section 79 went from one year to three. If a page has that wrong, check everything else on it.

Frequently asked questions

Related pages

Browse all 21 law pages — search by section number, old or new →