[POSH Act] Majority ICC Reports 'Shockingly' Biased In Favour Of Workplace, Can't Impact Police Report Filed On Victim's Complaint: Kerala HC

The Court was considering whether the report of the Internal Complaints Committee established under the POSH Act could be solely relied upon to quash criminal proceedings against the accused.

Justice A. Badharudeen thus observed that ICC reports must be carefully examined and scrutinized before any action is taken based on them.

“It is shocking to note that majority of the ICC reports, I came across, are of unilateral and biased nature, favouring the majority of the institutions, and as such the credence of the ICC report is matter subject to thorough check and scrutiny to believe and act upon. Thus it is held that the report of the ICC is not the final word in so far as the allegations otherwise made before the police from the work place and for which crime was registered and investigated leading to final report alleging commission of the above offences.”

The petitioner, head and Principal of a College is accused of making sexually coloured remarks and demanding sexual favours from the complainant who is also working in the same college. 

The complainant alleged that she was asked to be obedient or that he would transfer or suspend her. The complainant thus alleges the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354-A (sexual harassment and punishment), 354-D (stalking) and 509 (outraging modesty of women) of the IPC and Section 119(A) of the Kerala Police Act.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) shows that the allegations were false and thus sought for quashing of the proceedings. 

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the ICC reached a unilateral conclusion that the complainant made false allegations without even recording her statement.

After going through the statement of the complainant, the Court noted that the petitioner demanded sexual favours from the complainant and that he used to make unnecessary comments targeting her. The Court further noted that the petitioner caused mental and physical suffering to the complainant by continuously following her. The Court further stated that other professors in the college also supported the statement given by the complainant and thus prima facie case was made out against the petitioner.

The Court analysed various provisions of the POSH Act and noted that Section 4 of the Act provides for the constitution of ICC. It stated that under Section 11 of the Act, ICC has the power to inquire into the complaint and they shall forward such complaint to the police for registration of the case. It further stated that as per Section 27 of the Act, the Court shall take cognizance of offences on the basis of complaint of the aggrieved woman or any person authorized by the ICC. It further observed that Section 28 of the Act states that provisions of the Act are supplementary to and in derogation of any other laws in place.

On examining the provisions of the POSH Act, the Court stated that the report or findings of the ICC will have no impact against the police report filed based on the victim's complaint.

Court said, “Therefore, the aggrieved person when directly makes a complaint to the police, police registers crime, conducts investigation and files final report finding commission of the offences alleged, the ICC report or its finding against the police report has no bearing on the prosecution case.”

In the facts of the case, the Court found that the statement of the complainant was not taken by the ICC but they only took the statement of the accused and a few other teachers.

The Court thus concluded that the ICC gave a clean chit to the petitioner without conducting a proper enquiry. It added, “In the ICC report, considering the statements of the witnesses examined, by putting some vague questions and obtaining answers from them, gave clean chit to the accused without recording the statement of the victim, who is really aggrieved. I do not think that ICC report, prepared without even recording the statement of the victim, could supersede the prosecution records to disbelieve the same.”

As such, the Court found that a prima facie case was made out and refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Sreekanth S Nair, Sandeep P Johnson

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor M P Prasanth

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 8581 OF 2024

Case Title: Amjith v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 712

Click here to Read/Download Order