Sexual Harassment In Public Places Improbable, Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a sexual harassment complaint filed by an employee against her boss with a private firm only three days before her contract was to expire.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the plea filed by M/s Mindtree Company Limited’s Delivery Center Manager and quashed the prosecution commenced against him under sections 354 (A) and 420 of the IPC.

The petitioner had approached the court challenging the trial court’s order to reject his discharge application. The petitioner argued that the elements of Section 354(A) of the IPC are totally missing from the police charge sheet. Furthermore, it was said that management did not wish to renew the complainant’s contract. The complainant was attempting to put pressure on the petitioner to recommend contract extension.

The prosecution rejected the plea, claiming that witness statements show that there are charges against the petitioner and that it is up to the petitioner to come clean at trial. Even after being served with notice, the complainant was not represented.

The court expressed “shock” at the locations where the alleged sexual intercourse was supposed to have happened after reading the complaint.

“The locations are at Mindtree office, Forum Mall-Koramangala, and Barton Center-M.G.Road, all of which are open areas. The petitioner sexually assaulting the complainant in such public areas cannot but be a very improbable allegation,” the Court stated.

“A reading of the charge sheet would reveal that the accusation against the petitioner is that he has tried to touch the complainant improperly seeking to kiss her. Neither the complaint nor the charge sheet would suggest any element of an offence under Section 354(A) of the IPC, which deals with insulting a woman’s modesty. As a result, the alleged offence cannot be prosecuted against the petitioner and must be obliterated.”

In dealing with the other charge under Section 420, the court stated that the components required for an offence under Section 420 of the IPC must be present. The complainant claims that the petitioner defrauded and violated the marriage commitment, and hence the crime under Section 420 of the IPC would become maintainable.

After which it added “This is manifestly contradictory to law, as breach of pledge of marriage cannot constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC is the law put down by the Apex and that of this Court in a plethora of cases. As a result, the petitioner cannot be charged with the aforementioned offence.”

Thus, it held,” In light of both violations establishing no foundation, either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the concerned Court ought to have evaluated the petitioner’s plea for discharge and passed appropriate orders, in line with law.”

“I think it is reasonable to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner, failing which it would constitute a misuse of the legal process and result in a miscarriage of justice,” it added. As a result, the petition was granted.