"Merely Trivializes The Offence Of Sexual Harassment": Delhi High Court Expresses Anguish Over False Invocation Of S. 354A, 506 IPC

The Delhi High Court has expressed its anguish at how Sections 354A and 506 of IPC were falsely invoked in an FIR at the drop of a hat to register one's displeasure at the conduct of another individual, observing that the aforesaid merely trivializes the offence of sexual harassment.

Justice Subramonium Prasad also added that such false invocation of the said provisions casts a doubt on the veracity of the allegations filed by every other victim who has in reality faced sexual harassment, thereby setting back the cause of women empowerment.

The Court made the said observations while quashing an FIR registered under Section 354A (sexual harassment) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) against an Assistant Professor at the University of Delhi, petitioner in the matter.

The facts of the case are that in December 2016, the Petitioner, had gone to his hometown with his family, and during this time, the cemented water tank that had been constructed for his flat on the roof top, was demolished by a lady being respondent no. 2.

After returning, the petitioner was shocked to see that there was no water and when he objected to the illegality of the constructions, the said respondent and her family assured the Petitioner that they would reconstruct it. However, they failed to do so and the Petitioner installed a plastic water tank with his own money.

Since the Petitioner's wife was suffering from multiple ailments, she made several requests as well as wrote multiple letters to the DDA authorities regarding the illegal construction, however, they were not acted upon.

Thereafter, it was stated that the respondent no. 2 and her son abused and threatened the Petitioner's wife along with the entire family with dire consequences after which a criminal complaint was filed by the Petitioner's wife. However, it was stated that no FIR was registered despite the disclosure of a cognizable offence.

It was also stated that in October 2020, the Petitioner was attacked by one Mohan Singh who allegedly conspired with Respondent No.2. When a complaint was by the petitioner, no FIR was registered.

Furthermore, after the petitioner's wife submitted a written complaint, it was stated that in response to the same, the police called the Petitioner and pressurized him and his wife to compromise the matter. On their refusal to do so, it was stated that Respondent No. 2 in collusion with the police, lodged the impugned FIR.

Advocate Kumar Piyush Pushkar appearing for the petitioner submitted that FIR deserved to be quashed as the same was lodged with a mala fide intent and was an attempt to coerce and arm-twist the Petitioner into withdrawing the complaint that was lodged by his wife.

It was also submitted that more than 20 complaints were filed by the Petitioner's wife against Respondent No.2 and her family members, and that the same were pending before various authorities. Furthermore, it was argued that the impugned FIR contained nothing but bald allegations and was registered in connivance with the police as the daughter-in-law of Respondent No.2 was a part of Delhi Police.

Seeking quashing of the FIR, it was submitted that the Petitioner was a man of high stature who had been teaching as a professor at Delhi University, and that the FIR tainted his reputation and closed all the doors to future prospects for him.

The said allegations were denied by the counsel appearing for Respondent no 2.

"A perusal of the material on record in the present case, in this Court's considered opinion, reveals that the contents of the FIR are sketchy in nature and are void of any specifics regarding the offences which have allegedly been committed," the Court said.

It added that while the Court was cognizant of the fact that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details, however, in the instant case, a bare reading of the impugned FIR prima facie indicated that it arose out of bald allegations and contradictory statements.

"The Status Report states that the Petitioner and his wife were habitual complainants and have filed multiple complaints against the construction that would take place in the neighbourhood, and therefore, it is evident that the instant FIR was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Petitioner, and with a view to spite him and his wife due to a private and personal grudge," the Court added.

The Court further said that a comprehensive reading of the matter revealed that the impugned FIR was merely a counterblast and was solely registered to arm-twist the Petitioner and his wife into withdrawing the complaints that had been filed against Respondent No.2 and her family.

Importantly, the Court said:

"This Court expresses its anguish at how provisions such as Sections 354A/506 IPC are falsely invoked at the drop of a hat to register one's displeasure at the conduct of another individual."

"This merely trivialises the offence of sexual harassment and casts a doubt on the veracity of the allegations filed by every other victim who has in reality faced sexual harassment, thereby setting back the cause of women empowerment."

Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR.

Case Title: DR KARUNAKAR PATRA v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 48

Click Here To Read Order