Cart is empty 
The sole accused in Crime No.675 of 2024 from Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam, filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to quash the FIR against him. The case stemmed from an alleged sexual assault incident during the Sargam University Youth Festival held at Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) Auditorium. The defacto complainant, a student and stage convenor, accused the petitioner, a senior university official, of sexual assault.
Table of Contents
Facts of the Case:
The defacto complainant alleged that on March 1, 2024, after the Sargam festival concluded at 9:00 p.m., she, along with another individual, attempted to retrieve an oil lamp from the stage. The accused, who is a CUSAT teacher, Director of the Youth Welfare Board, and a member of the Syndicate, directed her to leave. When she explained her purpose, the accused allegedly became angry and forcefully grabbed her left breast. She vocally warned him not to touch her, but he repeated the act twice more, even as her friend arrived nearby. The complainant claimed that this incident left her mentally distressed and ashamed. She also alleged that the accused later threatened her, warning that her studies would be jeopardized if she reported the incident to the authorities.
The FIR filed by the police charged the accused with offenses under Sections 354 (Assault or criminal force on a woman intending to outrage her modesty), 354A (Sexual harassment), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the FIR was filed after a delay of 127 days, making the complaint an afterthought and fabricated. He contended that the elements required to attract Sections 354, 354A, and 506 of IPC were not established from the allegations.
The petitioner maintained that his actions were part of enforcing university guidelines set by the CUSAT Syndicate in light of the November 2023 stampede that killed four people and injured 60 others during a tech festival.
As per the Syndicate’s guidelines all events were to be supervised by teachers and restricted to 9 p.m. The petitioner, tasked with enforcing these rules, asked the complainant to leave the auditorium at 9:10 p.m.
The petitioner further submitted that the allegations were politically motivated, and the delay in filing the complaint was due to animosity from the University Union, which was upset by his strict enforcement of festival rules.
The alleged incident occurred in the presence of other teachers, who witnessed the petitioner’s instructions to the complainant and her male companion to leave the auditorium.
Complainant’s Arguments:
The complainant argued that the petitioner deliberately outraged her modesty and sexually harassed her. She cited the Internal Committee (IC) report at CUSAT, which supported her claims of sexual assault.
The complainant attributed the delay in filing the complaint to fear of retaliation, as the petitioner held significant power within the university as the Director of the Youth Welfare Board and a member of the Syndicate. She feared her studies would be discontinued if she reported the incident.
Court’s Observations:
The court noted that the first complaint was lodged 127 days after the incident, which indicated a significant delay. Such delay cast doubt on the bona fides of the complainant, raising the possibility that the FIR was filed as an afterthought.
The court also examined whether the petitioner’s actions were intended to outrage the complainant’s modesty or constituted sexual harassment. According to the petitioner, his physical contact occurred while preventing unauthorized access to the auditorium as part of enforcing university discipline. The complainant’s allegations were viewed in the context of the strict guidelines governing event timings and teacher supervision.
The court noted the existence of the IC report but did not find it conclusive in determining whether the petitioner’s actions met the threshold for sexual harassment or criminal intimidation. The court reiterated that for Section 354 IPC to apply, there must be evidence of criminal force used with the intent to outrage a woman’s modesty. The court found that the petitioner’s actions—objecting to the complainant’s entry into the auditorium—did not demonstrate such intent, particularly as other staff members were present.
The court also ruled that the petitioner’s actions did not meet the criteria for sexual harassment under Section 354A(1) IPC, which involves physical contact and advances of an explicit sexual nature. Additionally, no sufficient evidence of threats or intimidation as required under Section 506 IPC was found.
Court’s Decision:
The court concluded that the FIR lacked merit due to the substantial delay in filing the complaint and the absence of prima facie evidence to support the charges of sexual harassment or criminal intimidation. The FIR appeared to be the result of animosity against the petitioner due to his strict enforcement of university regulations during the festival.
As a result, the court quashed the FIR and allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, stating that none of the offenses under Sections 354, 354A, or 506 of the IPC were made out.
However, the court emphasized that the petitioner must not obstruct the complainant’s academic progress in any way and warned that any retaliatory actions would be taken seriously. The complainant was granted the right to seek legal redress if any such actions occurred.
