Sexually Harassing In Open Spaces Like Mall & Office Highly Improbable: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a sexual harassment complaint lodged by an employee against her manager three days before her work contract with the private company was to end.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Delivery Center Manager of M/s Mindtree Company Limited and quashed the prosecution against him initiated under section 354 (A) and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner had approached the court challenging the order by which the trial court rejected his discharge application. The petitioner contended that ingredients of Section 354(A) of the IPC are completely absent in the charge sheet so filed by the police. Further, it was said the management did not want to extend the contract of the complainant. The complainant somehow wanted to pressurize the petitioner in recommending extension of contract.

The prosecution opposed the plea stating that witness statements demonstrate that there are in fact allegations against the petitioner and that it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. The complainant was not represented even after serving notice.

On going through the complaint, the bench expressed "shock" at the places where the alleged sexual contact was said to have occurred. It said,

“The places are at Mindtree office, Forum Mall-Koramangala, Barton Center-M.G.Road, all of which are open places. The petitioner sexually abusing the complainant in such open places cannot but be an allegation that is highly improbable.”

On perusing the chargesheet filed by the police the court said “A perusal at the charge sheet would indicate that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has tried to touch the complainant inappropriately wanting to kiss her. Neither the complaint nor the charge sheet would indicate any ingredient of offence under Section 354(A) of the IPC which deals with outraging the modesty of a women. Therefore, the said offence cannot be laid against the petitioner and requires to be obliterated.”

Dealing with the other charge under section 420 the court noted that for an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, the ingredients as obtaining under Section 415 of the IPC must be present. The allegation of the complainant is that the petitioner has cheated and breached the promise of marriage and therefore, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC would become maintainable.

Following which it said “This is plainly contrary to law, as breach of promise of marriage cannot become an offence under Section 420 of the IPC is the law laid down by the Apex and that of this Court in a plethora of cases. Therefore, the said offence also cannot be laid against the petitioner.”

Thus it held “In the light of both the offences laying no foundation, either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the concerned Court ought to have considered the application of the petitioner for discharge and passed appropriate orders, in accordance with law.”

It added “I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner, failing which, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

Accordingly it allowed the petition.

Case Title: Sameer Dinakar Bhole And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 697 OF 2020

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 109

Date of Order: 02-03-2023

Appearance: Advocate Anand B Muddappa for petitioner.

HCGP K P Yashodha for R1.