The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash an FIR alleging sexual harassment, molestation, sexual assault, alleged digital penetration and criminal intimidation by a company owner against a woman employee, holding that the allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences requiring investigation.
A Division Bench of Justice Tarun Saxena and Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or determine the truthfulness of allegations at the FIR stage. The Court noted that the petitioner’s defence that the FIR was a counter-blast to an earlier criminal case required investigation and could not be accepted merely on the basis of affidavits and annexures.
The woman employee had alleged that the petitioner, who was the owner of the company where she worked, subjected her to sexual misconduct and allegedly sexually assaulted her and digitally penetrated her. She also alleged that she was induced through promises of money and promotion and was subsequently threatened with harm to herself and her family. The Court observed that allegations of molestation, sexual assault, digital penetration, inducement and criminal intimidation could not be brushed aside as disclosing no offence.
Also Read President Gives Assent to Supreme Court Judges Strength Bill; Number of Judges Raised To 37
The petitioner argued that the FIR was a counter-blast to an earlier criminal case and relied upon a police report which had questioned the absence of WhatsApp chats, call recordings and social media conversations supporting the allegations. Rejecting this contention, the Court held that the absence of electronic material at the preliminary stage could not establish that the allegations were false. Call detail records, location records, CCTV footage and other electronic evidence could be collected during investigation, and the burden of conducting such investigation could not be shifted onto the complainant.
Relying on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 1515, the Bench reiterated that registration of an FIR is mandatory where information discloses a cognizable offence. It further referred to Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online SC 315 to underline that the police have a statutory duty to investigate cognizable offences and that disputed allegations should ordinarily be tested through investigation rather than at the threshold.
Also Read Punjab Drug Menace: SC Appoints Sr Adv Shadan Farasat, Adv Udai Khanna as Amicus Curiae
The Court observed that allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace require a sensitive, fair and legally compliant investigation, while the rights of the accused must also be protected through a fair process. It cautioned that quashing an FIR at the threshold, despite allegations disclosing cognizable offences, could have the effect of discouraging similarly situated complainants from approaching the police or courts.
The Bench also took serious note of the police’s failure to register the FIR when the complainant initially approached the police authorities. The Court questioned why the police had focused on the complainant’s failure to produce electronic evidence instead of treating the allegations as information requiring registration and investigation.
The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh has been directed to examine the circumstances in which the complaint was not registered and to inquire into the conduct of the concerned police personnel, including officers at Police Station Wave City and officers who dealt with the complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad.
The DGP has also been directed to issue show-cause notices to the concerned officers and personally supervise the inquiry. A report by way of personal affidavit, setting out the officers examined, their explanations, findings and action proposed or taken, is to be filed before the High Court within four weeks.
The petition was accordingly dismissed. The Court clarified that it had expressed no final opinion on the merits of the criminal case.
