TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 1535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under sections 354A/506 IPC, 1860 at P.S. Vasant Kunj (North) District South -West, New Delhi along with consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR. 2. The perusal of FIR reflects that it was got registered on account of DD No. 26B dated 01.12.2018 lodged by the respondent no.2 regarding the sexual harassment at workplace i.e. Head Office, Maruti Suzuki India Limited (MSIL) and threat to the safety and life of the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 stated that she is a lawyer by profession and worked as a trainee at Head Office, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Vasant Kunj till August, 2018. The respondent was sexually harassed by the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan, Archit Ashwani and Surajit Chatterjee (petitioner in W.P.(CRL) 3005/2019) of the legal team. The petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and Archit Ashwani have been involved in harassing the trainees earlier sexually as well as work related harassment but their acts have been covered up by the superior officers repeatedly without taking any action against them. The respondent no.2 raised the complaint regarding the harassment meted out to her initially with Shri Lokesh Pandey, Department Manager but no action was taken by him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pprehended about her life and no action has ever been taken on the basis of the complaint. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint, the present FIR under sections 354A/506 IPC was got registered. 3. The petitioner/Ashish Chauhan in W.P.(CRL) 2802/2019 stated that he is a Law Graduate and working as an in-house Counsel (Manager - Legal and Special Projects) with Maruti Suzuki India Limited at Head Office, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and is associated with the company for more than 11 years. The respondent no. 2 was temporarily inducted as an intern/trainee in Legal Department-2 (Litigation Team) and interned for an approximate period of 10 months. 3.1 The present FIR was got registered on the basis of a bogus and false complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 with a malicious intention to harass the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and tarnish his reputation. No prima facie case for the offences punishable under sections 354A/506 IPC is made out qua the petitioner. The Police have not submitted any charge-sheet after conclusion of the investigation. 3.2 The Internal Complaints Committee, MSIL constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r made any phone call to the respondent no.2 nor even sent any inappropriate message during or after the training/internship of the respondent no.2. The petitioner/Ashish Chauhan was transferred to work directly with Executive Director - Legal and General Counsel of MSIL on 03.04.2018. The internship/training of the respondent no.2 got concluded in the month of August, 2018 and during this period she never made any complaint or raised any issue qua the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan. 3.6 The respondent no.2 vide e-mail dated 23.08.2018 requested the Department Head to clear the dues and issue the certificate and even then the respondent no.2 did not mention any grievance against the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan. The respondent no.2 was issued a training completion certificate dated 31.08.2018 by the Litigation Head of Legal Department-2, which was duly received by the respondent no.2 without any protest. 3.7 An anonymous complaint was filed on 20.10.2018 at the National Commission of Women against the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and other employees of MSIL wherein it was alleged that the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan along with other employees sexually harassed the respondent no.2 and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iences and joined MSIL as Deputy Manager in its Legal Department on 07.11.2014 and left the company on 20.06.2018. The petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee was handling high stake industrial dispute/labour matters and related advisory. 4.1 The respondent no.2 joined the company as "trainee" on recommendation of Surender Kumar Kataria, the then Advisor Legal Department on 18.09.2017. The respondent no.2 assisted the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee in labour/industrial dispute matters during the period from November, 2017 to February, 2018 and thereafter she was deputed to assist other legal officers of the company. There was no interaction between the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee and the respondent no.2 on any issue post February, 2018. 4.2 The present FIR was lodged on the basis of false and frivolous complaint made by the respondent no.2 with malafide intention. The respondent no.2 has not made any specific allegations of harassment against the petitioner in the FIR. The respondent no.2 has made false and frivolous FIR after 06 months of leaving the company. No charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer. The Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the Sexual Ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of witnesses. The petitioner was exonerated by the Committee vide Final Report dated 19.08.2019. The present FIR is an afterthought and motivated. It is prayed that FIR bearing no.594/2018 be quashed. 5. The respondent/State filed the Status Report wherein it is stated that the present FIR bearing no. 594/2018 was got registered on the basis of complaint made by the respondent no.2 under sections 354A/506/34 IPC regarding the sexual harassment at workplace as well other related harassment. It is alleged by respondent no.2 that the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan used to stare at her in a sexually offending manner, making gestures over her and also used to talk with co-accused Archit Ashwani regarding her dressing and physical aspects. The petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and Archit Ashwani also tried to touch her on number of occasions without her consent. The statement of the respondent no.2 was also recorded under section 164 of the Code wherein the respondent no.2 made allegations against the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee regarding the sexual harassment. The petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee did not join the investigation. The exoneration in Internal Complaints Committee proceeding of the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ual harassment or criminal intimidation by the petitioner. FIR is belated, after thought, motivated and malicious and is filed to abuse the process of law. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. It is argued that FIR be quashed. 8. The Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 argued on the basis of contents of the Status Report. It is argued that both the petitioners have caused sexual harrassment to the respondent no.2 at her workplace. The findings given by the Internal Complaints Committee do not affect in any manner prosecution arising out of FIR bearing no.594/2018. It was argued that both the petitions be dismissed. 9. It is reflecting that the respondent no. 2 is a lawyer by profession. The respondent no. 2 was introduced as an intern/trainee in Legal Department-2 (litigation team) at the instance of Surender Kumar, Advisor, Legal Department-2. The respondent no. 2 sent an e-mail along with her resume to the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan on 06.09.2017 for joining as an intern in MSIL and was asked to join the training w.e.f. 18.09.2017 vide email dated 07.09.2017. The petitioner/Ashish Cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioners in connivance with other employees/ex-employees of MSIL and no offence is made out from FIR against the petitioners or any of the petitioners and argued that the present petitions be allowed. 11. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was enacted to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 4 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 deals with constitution of Internal Complaints Committee and provides that every employer of a workplace shall constitute a Committee to be known as the Internal Complaints Committee. MSIL on the basis of FIR bearing no.594/2018, constituted Internal Complaints Committee which conducted detailed enquiry and exonerated the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee vide Final Report dated 19.08.2019. The legal issue which requires judicial consideration and assessment is that whether after exoneration vide Final Report dated 19.08.2019, the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7-3-1996 for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs. 11.1.1 The Supreme Court in Ashoo Surender Nath Tewari also referred Radheshyam Kejriwal V State of West Bengal and another, (2011) 3 SCC 581wherein it was held as under:- 26. We may observe that the standard of proof in a criminal case is much higher than that of the adjudication proceedings. The Enforcement Directorate has not been able to prove its case in the adjudication proceedings and the appellant has been exonerated on the same allegation. The appellant is facing trial in the criminal case. Therefore, in our opinion, the determination of facts in the adjudication proceedings cannot be said to be irrelevant in the criminal case. In B.N. Kashyap [AIR 1945 Lah 23] the Full Bench had not considered the effect of a finding of fact in a civil case over the criminal cases and that will be evident from the following passage of the said judgment: (AIR p. 27) "... I must, however, say that in answering the question, I have only referred to civil cases where the actions are in personam and not those where the proceedings or actions are in rem. Whether....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases. 39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court. 11.1.2 The Supreme Court after relying on above referred judgment held as under:- 8. Applying the aforesaid judgments to the facts of this case, it is clear that in view of the detailed CVC order dated 22.12.2011, the chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and that of the Special Judge and discharge ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se with each other, even though there was no advisory given to them by the IC till then. That seems to be improbable lie and implies an atmosphere of constraint. The final conclusions are as follows: 1. The IC, after evaluating the facts placed on record and no cross-examination, has not been able to establish any case of Sexual Harassment against Respondent no, 1, 2 &3 due to the lack of evidences available. Since the Complainant has already withdrawn her complaint and is no more willing to co operate and further participate in the proceedings, IC could not make out a clear conclusion with respect to Sexual Harassment. 2. The IC also feels that the employee grievance redressal mechanism could have been better. As alleged by the Complainant also, if this matter had been handled with more discretion and sensitivity by the seniors at an early stage, it would not have escalated the way it did. 3. The IC also observed that there were major administrative issues in respect of a formal HR process of engaging or confirming a trainee/ intern in Legal Division. Further, IC found that no mechanism existed there to impart training, fix stipend or provide fe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment and punishment for sexual harassment- (1) A man committing any of the following acts-- (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or (iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or (iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. (2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Section 503 IPC defines criminal intimidation. Section 506 IPC provides punishment for criminal intimidation. 12.1 The perusal of FIR bearing no. 594/2018 reflects that it was got registered on 01.12.2018 while the respondent no.2 left MSIL in the month of August, 2018. It reflects that the FIR bearing no.594/2018 wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 13. The Supreme Court continuously observed that the extraordinary power under section 482 ....