Court’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court refused to quash a criminal proceeding initiated by a woman alleging sexual harassment by a retired senior officer. The Court held that, on a prima facie view, the materials on record disclosed the commission of cognizable offences and warranted further investigation. The Court observed that “the new penal provisions, as applicable from July 1, 2024, shall not affect the prosecution initiated under the earlier law,” in view of Section 531 of the new criminal statute. Thus, it rejected the prayer to quash the proceedings and allowed the police investigation to continue.
Facts
The case concerns a complaint lodged by a woman who was formerly employed as a junior in a government department. She alleged that the petitioner, a retired senior officer, had sexually harassed her during the course of her employment. She filed a written complaint at the local police station, which was registered under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The petitioner approached the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, asserting that no offence had been made out against him and the allegations were baseless. It was also submitted that the complaint had been filed years after the alleged incident, and therefore should not be entertained.
Issues
- Whether the allegations made in the FIR disclose any cognizable offence so as to justify police investigation?
- Whether the proceeding should be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court?
- Whether the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 would apply to pending proceedings?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the complaint was lodged with a mala fide intention to harass him post-retirement. He claimed that the complaint was lodged after an unreasonable delay and lacked specific allegations. It was also submitted that even if the allegations were accepted in totality, they did not satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 354 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, the petitioner argued that the allegations pertained to a time when he was holding a high post and there was no contemporaneous complaint made, thus casting doubt on the complainant’s credibility. He urged the Court to exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the FIR to prevent abuse of process.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the prayer for quashing, contending that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and the police were within their jurisdiction to investigate. The complainant also reiterated her allegations and emphasized that she had been subjected to inappropriate conduct and humiliation in the workplace. The delay in lodging the FIR was attributed to fear of professional backlash and trauma. It was submitted that the allegations were serious and could not be brushed aside at the threshold. The State further argued that the change in criminal statute did not impact ongoing proceedings, which would continue under the old law as per Section 531 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the scope of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and reiterated that these powers are to be exercised sparingly, and only in exceptional cases where the complaint fails to disclose any offence, or where the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
It referred to established principles laid down by the Supreme Court that courts should not analyze the veracity or sufficiency of allegations in a petition seeking quashing, particularly at the FIR stage. It must only be examined whether a prima facie offence is disclosed.
The Court further examined the provisions of Sections 354 and 509 of the IPC, which relate to assault or use of criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty and insult to modesty through words, gestures or acts, respectively.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which laid down the contours for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and the categories of cases in which quashing may be permissible. It also relied on Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, where it was held that if the allegations constitute an offence, the court should not interfere.
Additionally, the Court invoked the principle affirmed in Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which emphasized that the power to quash should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution.
The Court also relied on Section 531 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 to hold that existing proceedings will continue under the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that the FIR contained allegations of inappropriate behavior and humiliating remarks directed at the complainant by the petitioner in a position of authority. It found that these allegations, on their face, attracted offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC.
The Court clarified that “the inherent power of this Court is not to be invoked to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence at this stage,” and “when the allegations are not absurd or inherently improbable, the FIR should not be quashed.”
The Court was also of the view that the delay in filing the complaint was reasonably explained and not fatal to the prosecution. As for the argument concerning the change in criminal law, the Court observed that “in view of Section 531 of the new enactment, the present proceedings must continue under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court refused to interfere with the FIR at the initial stage and dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding. It directed that the investigation shall continue and be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as saved by Section 531 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Implications
This judgment affirms that allegations of sexual harassment, even if made after a delay, must be investigated when a prima facie case is made out. It reinforces the principle that courts should not prematurely scuttle legitimate criminal proceedings. It also clarifies the transition from the CrPC to the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, stating that pending cases will be governed by the repealed law unless specifically stated otherwise.
Judgments Cited
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – Laid down the conditions under which an FIR can be quashed.
- Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque – Reiterated that quashing should not occur when allegations disclose a cognizable offence.
- Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh – Emphasized that legitimate prosecutions must not be scuttled at the threshold.
FAQs
1. Can a criminal proceeding be quashed at the FIR stage if there is a delay in filing the complaint?
No. If the FIR discloses a prima facie offence and the delay is reasonably explained, the proceedings should not be quashed solely on the ground of delay.
2. Will ongoing proceedings be affected by the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
No. As per Section 531 of the new law, all proceedings initiated under the CrPC, 1973 will continue under the same law unless otherwise stated.
3. What is the scope of a High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC?
This power is to be used sparingly, only in cases where the FIR fails to disclose any offence or where the continuation of proceedings would be a clear abuse of judicial process.
