Bombay High Court Quashes Sexual Harassment FIR Against Company's Human Resource VP

The Bombay High Court has quashed a sexual harassment FIR against the Vice President Human Resources (HR) of an insurance firm observing improvements in the complainant’s statement to the police.

The division bench headed by Justice AS Gadkari cited guideline 6 & 7 in the State of Haryana & Ors. vs Bhajan Lal & Ors judgement.

According to the guidelines where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, with an efficacious redressal for aggrieved party’s grievance, the FIR can be quashed or if the court finds the FIR was registered with malicious intention.

“Perusal of record clearly indicates that, the FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2 is filled with improvements and suppression of material facts which are on record, as noted above and according to us is lodged with mala fide intention, only to harass the Petitioner.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the CrPC and quashed the FIR.

The Bhandup Police station on August 2016 registered an FIR under 354A and 509 of the IPC against the HR head of MAX Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

According to the FIR, the Respondent-complainant was working as a Center Manager in Max Life Insurance Company. On May 20, 2016 the VP (HR) visited the Bhadup Office for a meeting. She alleged that after the meeting he came to her desk and kept staring at her and made a sexual remark. When she told him off her got angry, tore the name plate on her desk, and abused her, she alleged.

The woman said she was humiliated as several employees were present at the time of the incident.

The woman complained to her company the same day. She said no action was taken. Then her father wrote to the company. When still no action was allegedly taken she approached the police. By this time three months had passed.

Advocate Sanjay Kumar from Luthra and Luthra Law Offices submitted that the allegations were a fiction of the complainant’s imagination. He claimed that the first complaint to the company merely mentioned mental harassment and the episode of tearing her name plate. The second email sent through her father had improvements. However, the sexual remarks allegation was only made in the FIR.

He mentioned that the woman’s complaint was referred to the Internal Complaint's Committee (ICC) as constituted under Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) and the said committee, after conducting detailed inquiry has exonerated the Petitioner.

He submitted that various High Courts in India have held that where the facts giving rise to the criminal complaint have already been investigated by the ICC constituted under the provisions of the POSH Act and have resulted into exoneration of the accused person on merits then a FIR arising out of the same facts cannot be sustained.

Advocate for the respondent said she sticks to her version in the FIR. She claimed she didn’t know what to do as the petitioner held a very powerful position.

She, however, fairly conceded about initially approaching Borivali police station with her complaint and the police asking her to approach the Civil Court.

“It is to be noted here that, the Respondent No. 2 did not make any allegation of passing sexual remarks by the Petitioner against her in the said first complaint,” the court observed.

The court noted that the woman wrongly claimed the company didn’t take action on her complaints as the ICC conducted two enquiries against the petitioner.

“Respondent No. 2 has suppressed the fact that, the Max Life Insurance Company had taken cognizance of the complaints lodged by her on 30th May, 2016 and her father on 11th August, 2016 and the ICC had conducted inquiry into it. She also did not disclose the fact of her lodging of earlier complaint with Borivali Police Station on 18th July, 2016,” the court noted.

Case status - Vijay Choudhary vs state of Maharashtra and Ors.

Counsels:

For Petitioner: Adv Sanjay Kumar, Abhishek Singh and Praveet Shetty i/by Res Legal Advocates and Solicitors

For Respondents- APP Ajay Patil & Adv Meenaz Kakalia

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment