In a significant ruling, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court quashed an FIR filed against a senior officer accused of insulting a woman’s modesty by allegedly using a paperweight shaped like a nude lady during their workplace interactions. The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim and observed that the FIR seemed to have been lodged with ulterior motives, particularly after the Vishakha Committee had cleared the accused of any wrongdoing.
The case revolved around an incident where the accused, a Superintendent Engineer at the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), was alleged to have used a controversial paperweight in his interactions with a female subordinate, who was working as an Executive Engineer. The complainant claimed that the accused would gesture towards the paperweight inappropriately when she visited his office for work-related matters between January and February 2022.
Legal Issues Involved:
The central legal issue in this case was whether the accused’s actions amounted to an offense under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to words, gestures, or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
The complainant, after experiencing the alleged misconduct, initially raised the issue with the company’s internal Vishakha Committee, which is responsible for handling sexual harassment cases in the workplace. After conducting an investigation, the Committee concluded that there was no evidence of sexual harassment and cleared the accused of any wrongdoing. However, the complainant, dissatisfied with the Committee’s decision, subsequently filed an FIR in August 2022, citing the same allegations.
Court’s Observations:
The court, presided over by Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar, found several discrepancies in the complainant’s narrative. One of the court’s primary concerns was the delay in filing the FIR, which was lodged only after the Vishakha Committee’s report cleared the accused. The court noted that the complainant had waited for the outcome of the Committee’s decision before lodging the police complaint, which raised doubts about the motives behind the FIR.
In its judgment, the court remarked:
“We are afraid that only the orders in favour of the informant cannot be the justice. The complainant should not have waited for the decision of the Vishakha Committee to file the FIR if she genuinely believed that a crime had been committed.”
The court further emphasized that the FIR appeared to have been filed with an ulterior motive to settle personal scores. The bench cited the decision of the Vishakha Committee, which had interviewed several employees, none of whom corroborated the complainant’s allegations. Statements from other female employees working under the accused revealed that they did not find the presence of the paperweight offensive or insulting to their modesty.
Additionally, the court considered the panchnama and photographs of the paperweight in question. It noted that there was no clear indication that the paperweight resembled a nude woman or that it was used with the intent to insult or outrage the complainant’s modesty.
Key Observations from the Judgment:
The court highlighted the principles established in the State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajanlal case, which allows courts to quash FIRs when they are found to be frivolous or filed with malicious intent. Based on these principles, the court ruled that the FIR in this case did not contain sufficient material to constitute an offense under Section 509 IPC.
“It appears that the complainant wanted to settle personal scores… With the Vishakha Committee having already cleared the accused and considering the lack of evidence, the continuation of the proceedings would be a futile exercise.”
The court concluded that forcing the accused to undergo trial under these circumstances would be unjust. Accordingly, the bench quashed the criminal proceedings and the charge sheet filed against the accused.
