A sexual harassment complaint made by an employee against her manager was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court just three days before her work contract with the private company was due to expire.
The court, presided over by a single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna, granted the petition filed by the Delivery Center Manager of M/s Mindtree Company Limited, dropping the charges against him under section 354 (A) and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The person who filed the petition had gone to court to challenge the decision of the trial court, which had denied his request to be discharged from the case. The petitioner argued that the elements required to prove the offense under Section 354(A) of the IPC were not present in the charge sheet filed by the police. Additionally, it was claimed that the company management had no intention of renewing the complainant’s work contract and that the complainant had tried to pressure the petitioner into recommending an extension.
The petitioner had argued that the allegations made against him, which included sexual harassment in public places such as the Mindtree office, Forum Mall-Koramangala, and Barton Center-M.G. Road, were highly unlikely and lacked the necessary elements to constitute an offense under Section 354(A) of the IPC. Moreover, the petitioner claimed that the complainant was attempting to pressure him into recommending an extension of her work contract, despite the management’s reluctance to renew it.
After reviewing the charge sheet filed by the police, the court observed that the allegation against the petitioner was limited to an inappropriate attempt to touch and kiss the complainant. Furthermore, neither the complaint nor the charge sheet contained anything to support a charge of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354(A) of the IPC. As a result, the court ruled that the charge could not be sustained and must be dismissed.
The court reviewed the charge of Section 420 of the IPC and noted that it required the elements of Section 415 of the IPC to be present. The complainant had alleged that the petitioner had breached his promise of marriage, but this could not be considered a valid basis for a charge under Section 420 of the IPC, as it has been established by the Supreme Court and other courts in various cases. Therefore, the court held that both charges were without merit and should have been dismissed by the trial court. The court ordered that the proceedings against the petitioner be dropped, as failure to do so would be an abuse of the legal process and result in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court allowed the petition filed by the petitioner.
Source: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-section-354a-of-ipc-sexual-harassment-public-place-open-place-mall-223923
