Suspended IPS Officer Moves Supreme Court Seeking Transfer Of Sexual Harassment Case Out Of Tamil Nadu

The matter was heard by the division bench of Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ajay Rastogi in which the counsel for Tamil Nadu government had sought time to take instructions. The matter will be heard next on August 18.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Advocates Balaji Srinivisan, S. Elambharthi and Abdul Saleem said that the Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department (CB CID) probe was led by a Superintendent of Police, supervised by the Inspector General of Police, CB CID and monitored by Deputy General of Police, CB CID. It was also his contention that the High Court's intervention was "biased" and a source of prejudice which destroyed the presumption that a person was innocent until proven guilty.

In his plea, the petitioner had contended that the continued monitoring of the case even after the filing of charge sheet in a competent court was in "blatant ignorance" of the apex court's judgment in the Sushila Devi case and had raised an apprehension that the High Court's orders seem to leave the outcome of the trial to be forgotten conclusion.

"The High Court commenced monitoring of the investigation without disclosing any default in the progress of the investigation and further, continued to monitor the case even after the filing of the charge sheet before the competent trial court," the plea stated.

The plea also argued that the repeated order of the High Court from March 2 had attached "stigma" on the petitioner and amounted to a punishment in itself.

"Moreover the High Court lost sight of the most basic rule of natural justice- audi alteram partem (hear the other side) while passing grave prejudicial orders against the petitioner event to the extent of sternly directing his immediate suspension from the rank of Special Director General of Police (Law & Order), Tamil Nadu", plea also stated.

Background

On 01^st March, while taking the suo moto cognizance of the case, the Court had minced no words in criticizing the alleged incident and also expressed displeasure at the manner in which the officer allegedly used his contacts and power to prevent the victim officer from even filing a complaint against him.

The Judge had expressed his concern regarding the fact that if an officer holding a high rank in Indian Police Services can be harassed and be forced to not file a complaint, what must be the state of ordinary women who are victims of such acts.

Further, the Court heard the plea seeking issuance of directions to the CB-CID to effectively conduct the investigation in the matter, duly monitored by the HC.

The High Court was told the State CB-CID examined a total of 122 witnesses and 72 documents were collected in the course of the investigation. It was also submitted that the Final Report was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, on July 29, 2021, as against two accused of offences under Sections 354, 354A(2), 341, 506(1), 506(1) r/w 109 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002.

Earlier, the Madras High Court had extended by six weeks, the time granted to CB-CID for completing the probe into the matter.

The Madras High Court on August 2, 2021, had directed a lower court in Villupuram to complete the trial in the sexual assault complaint of a woman IPS officer against the suspended special DGP by December 20, 2021.

"As far as possible, the proceedings shall be conducted without granting unnecessary adjournments and it will be the duty of the respondent police, to summon the witnesses without causing any undue delay. It goes without saying that the witnesses will be cross examined on the same day they are examined in chief, unless such cross examination is not able to be conducted or concluded on the same day due to reasons beyond control," the Court further directed.

(Name of the accused withheld as per the order of the Madras High Court).