Telling Woman To Succumb To Sexual Demands For Growing In Career Not Abetment If Intention Absent: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that merely telling a woman she would have to succumb to innapropriate behaviour if she wants to grow in an industry would not amount to abetment to an offence if the intention is absent. The petitioner had sought quashing of an FIR for offences under Sections 354(Outraging Modesty), 354A(Sexual Harassment), 354C(Voyeurism), 354D(Stalking) and 114(Abettor...
The Gujarat High Court has held that merely telling a woman she would have to succumb to innapropriate behaviour if she wants to grow in an industry would not amount to abetment to an offence if the intention is absent.
The petitioner had sought quashing of an FIR for offences under Sections 354(Outraging Modesty), 354A(Sexual Harassment), 354C(Voyeurism), 354D(Stalking) and 114(Abettor Present When Offense is Committed) IPC.
The complainant had alleged she had been verbally abused, threatened and molested by a man who was the Secretary of Federation of Industry and Association. She had alleged that during various events at Jamnagar, Vapi, Rajkot, Surat and Vadodara, etc., the accused had inappropriately behaved and touched her.
When she informed the petitioner, who was stated to be the head of the institution–about such behaviour, the petitioner allegedly laughed and said that if "she wanted to progress in the business she would have to succumb to such type of demands".
The complainant alleged that petitioner was a "good friend" of the then Secretary and thus, the petitioner despite being head of the said institution had never acted on the complaints and has completely failed to perform his duties. On the contrary, it was alleged that the petitioner had pressurized the complainant to compromise with the illegal demands of the Secretary.
Justice PM Raval referred to provision on abetment and said that for making the petitioner liable for abetment by intentional aiding by an act or illegal omission, or instigation, or any conspiracy, or illegal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy, in order to facilitate the commission of the act of offence, the presence of the abettor either before the commission of the crime or offence, for facilitating commission of the offence, or at the time of commission of an act constituting the offence is necessary.
"Thus, the intention should be to aid the commission of a crime. Merely, by uttering the words that 'will have to succumb to such polluted demands if she wants to grow in the business', without there being any intention, will not make the act of abetment of an offence if the petitioner did not know that the offence was being committed or contemplated. What is seen is that after having committed such alleged offence, it was informed to the present petitioner who did not give heed to such complaints.
Thus, abetment by omission would only be punishable if such omission were an illegal omission, that is breach of a legal obligation. It is also relevant to note that mens rea is an essential element for offence of abetment. The lodging of the FIR by the informant by taking recourse of law does not aid the commission of an offence by the present petitioner, though it may amount to concealment of the acts of the accused of an offence already perpetrated. Mere negligence or carelessness on the part of the present petitioner cannot be termed as an abetment".
The high court quashed the FIR against the petitioner. It however clarified that the order was with respect to the petitioner and would not come in the way of the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, without being influenced by the order.
Case title: KANAIYALAL TRIKAMLAL PATEL v/s X & ANR.
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 31287 of 2016