Cart is empty 
Facts of the Case:
Table of Contents
The case involves an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing an FIR and charge sheet filed against the accused, who is a senior officer (Superintendent Engineer). The complainant, a female subordinate (Executive Engineer), alleged that the accused had placed a paperweight shaped like a naked lady on his desk and made inappropriate gestures while touching it in her presence, thereby outraging her modesty under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Vishakha Committee (IC), tasked with investigating complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace, had earlier found no evidence of such harassment and dismissed her complaint. Dissatisfied with the Committee’s findings, the complainant filed an FIR.
Contentions of the Parties:
Applicant (Accused’s Argument): The accused argued that the complainant’s allegations were false and motivated by personal enmity. The accused noted that the Vishakha Committee (IC) had already dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of sexual harassment. The accused contended that the paperweight was not shaped like a woman and that the charge sheet failed to establish any prima facie case under Section 509 IPC. Additionally, the accused submitted that the complainant had ulterior motives, as there had been workplace conflicts involving other employees and the complainant.
Respondent (Complainant’s Argument): The complainant argued that the accused’s actions, including his behaviour toward the paperweight, amounted to outraging her modesty. She further elaborated that she had consulted other female colleagues who had similar experiences, though they did not file formal complaints. She asserted that despite the Vishakha Committee’s decision, the accused’s behaviour warranted a criminal trial.
Prosecution’s Argument: The prosecution opposed the quashing of the FIR and charge sheet, arguing that the matter should proceed to trial where the evidence could be assessed in full.
Court’s Observations:
The Court observed that while it has limited powers under Section 482 CrPC, it is justified in quashing proceedings when the allegations and material on record do not attract the ingredients of the alleged offence. Upon reviewing the FIR, charge sheet, and Vishakha Committee’s (IC) findings, the Court found no substantial evidence to support the complainant’s claims of modesty being outraged. Notably, other female employees who had witnessed the same paperweight testified that they did not feel their modesty had been insulted. The Court emphasized that the complainant’s delay in filing the FIR after the Vishakha Committee’s (IC) ruling and the lack of clarity regarding the paperweight’s nature further weakened her case.
Court’s Order:
The Court allowed the application under Section 482 CrPC, quashing the FIR and the criminal proceedings against the accused. The Court concluded that the case did not meet the criteria for prosecution under Section 509 IPC, particularly in light of the Vishakha Committee’s (IC) findings, the lack of credible supporting evidence, and the absence of any clear intent to outrage the complainant’s modesty.
