Harassment Allegations By Ex-Party Leader: Gauhati HC Denies Interim Relief To Youth Congress President Srinivas BV

The Gauhati High Court recently refused to grant interim relief to Srinivas BV, the national president of the youth Congress, who was accused of harassment by expelled Assam Youth Congress president Angkita Dutta.

Before considering the petitioner’s interim plea, a single bench of Justice Ajit Borthakur observed that a review of the case diary, including the victim woman’s statement, was required under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for a just decision.

As a result, the bench refused to grant an interim relief to stay the FIR, stating that the request for interim relief would be considered only after receipt of the scanned copy of the case diary and service of notice on the complainant.

The Case

The allegations against Srinivas were brought up by the former President of the Assam Youth Congress, who claimed that Srinivas persistently harassed her mentally using sexist and slang words and threatened her with dire consequences if she revealed the same to high-ranking Congress Party officials.

She also claims that when she went to Raipur, Chhattisgarh, to attend the Congress Party’s plenary session on March 25, she was heckled by Srinivas while he held her arms and threatened her with slang words.

It was also claimed that despite informing the petitioner’s behavior before the Congress Party’s high office bearers, it did not produce any results, so she filed the impugned FIR.

Srinivas moved the Gauhati High Court to set aside the FIR and quash the Notice issued by the Dispur Police Station. He also sought guidance on how to protect himself from any coercive action.

His counsel argued before the Court that the FIR was the result of a political vendetta. It was also argued that the Assam Police have no jurisdiction to investigate any of the allegations made in the complaint, let alone register the instant FIR, and that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out on a first reading of the complaint.

Despite the petitioner’s counsel’s emphasis on the grant of relief, the bench opined that it could not grant any relief until it perused the case diary, including the victim woman’s statement and thus, calling for the necessary details.

Therefore, the bench scheduled the matter for further hearing on May 2, 2023.