In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a female accused in a case involving allegations of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation. The case, identified as C.R.R. 515 of 2020, involved the petitioner seeking relief under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner was implicated in connection with Netaji Nagar Police Station Case No. 312 of 2018 under Sections 354A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue revolved around the applicability of Section 354A of the IPC, which pertains to sexual harassment, to a female accused. The defense argued that Section 354A specifically mentions “a man,” thereby excluding women from being prosecuted under this section. Additionally, the defense highlighted inconsistencies and lack of specific allegations against the petitioner in the FIR and witness statements.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, presiding over the case, meticulously analyzed the submissions and evidence presented. The court noted the following key points:
1. Lack of Specific Allegations: The FIR and subsequent statements did not attribute any specific role to the petitioner in the alleged offenses. The allegations were general and lacked particular details regarding the petitioner’s involvement.
2. Gender-Specific Provision: The court emphasized that Section 354A of the IPC is gender-specific, applicable only to males. The section explicitly begins with “a man,” thereby legally excluding females from prosecution under this provision.
3. Abuse of Legal Process: The court concluded that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated with an ulterior motive, possibly to harass and intimidate. The court cited the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, which outline circumstances where the court can intervene to prevent abuse of the legal process.
Important Court Observations
Justice Gupta observed:
“Section 354A IPC can only apply qua a male accused. The section opens up with the term ‘a man.’ Accordingly, a woman cannot be said to have committed an offense under Section 354A of IPC.”
The court further stated:
“All the allegations made against the present petitioner are merely for implication with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite her due to private and personal grudge.”
Conclusion
In light of these observations, the Calcutta High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 354A/506/34 of the IPC. The court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to the specific language of penal provisions and preventing the misuse of legal processes.
Also Read
Case Information
– Case Number: C.R.R. 515 of 2020
– Bench: Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
– Lawyers for Petitioner: Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Amitabrata Hait, Mr. Arpit Choudhury
– Lawyers for State: Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Mr. Dipankar Paramanick
