The Bombay High Court recently observed that women in our society often hesitate to report such offenses while quashing an order that discharged a male teacher who sexually harassed a female teacher.
Justice Govind Sanap said that in such cases, women hesitate to report the offense as they fear it would affect their reputation and their families. The High Court stated that it was a general rule that the delay in lodging the FIR can’t be the basis of discharge.
The order stated, “In such cases, the reputation of the family and the reputation and character of a woman is at stake. It is to be noted that in such cases one has to be mindful of the fact that the character and reputation of a woman in our society are preserved and protected like an invaluable jewel. The women in our society, as well as the near and dear, are, therefore, reluctant to come out in open against such a crime, which has a tendency and propensity to cause a direct dent to the character and reputation.”
The Court heard a plea filed by an assistant teacher at a Zilla parishad school who challenged the orders of a magistrate court discharging the accused from the offense of outraging her modesty.
As per the prosecution case, the accused teacher made several sexual advances towards the complainant woman, who was a differently-abled person. Once, he had even moved his hand on her back and waist and sought sexual favors. A complaint was later filed by the woman’s family, after which a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the accused.
While considering the discharge plea of the accused, the magistrate court noted that the FIR was lodged after several months after the alleged incidents. Therefore, it discharged him on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR.
The judge opined, “The Court has to see the reason or explanation, if any, provided in the FIR for lodging the delay. The question in such cases is whether there is an explanation for the delay in lodging of the FIR and whether the explanation is sufficient to accept the prosecution case.”
The Bench noted that the complainant did not initially lodge the report for many reasons.
“Her children were grown up and educated. She further stated that in order to avoid defamation and humiliation in society, she did not go to the police and lodge the report. In her report, she stated that when all this become unbearable, she poured kerosene on her person and tried to set herself on fire. She has stated that she was saved by her husband and the neighbors.”
Further, the victim made a complaint to the Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. This was submitted to the Women Grievance Redressal Committee, which submitted its final report and opined that the accused was involved in a serious crime.
While quashing the order discharging the accused from the case, the Court stated that,
“There was no reason for her to malign her image and reputation in society. She has narrated the same in her report. It is further pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has branded her report as false. In my view, at the stage of discharge, it is not permissible…In my view, if the material on record is examined in juxtaposition with this settled position, it becomes clear that the approach of the learned Magistrate was not in accordance with the law.”
Advocate VS Lokhande appeared for the complainant. Additional Public Prosecutor AR Chutke represented the State. Advocate Yuvraj Humne appeared for the accused.
