In a revisional application filed before the Calcutta High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of criminal proceedings as well as the charge sheet filed regarding the said proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Second Court, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh refused to interfere with the proceedings and dismissed the application.
The First Information Report (FIR) was based on information received by the complainant, a trainee of Surveyor Unit-I, Dollygunj, Port Blair. He complained that as soon as the petitioner, an instructor of the Surveyor Trade In-charge, started taking classes, he spoke on inappropriate topics, such as good touch and bad touch, which he said were only the mindset of girls. It was also alleged that the petitioner approached the complainant with bad intentions during practical classes when he touched her waist and forcibly made her stand in front of the tripod, and pretended to teach her while touching her inappropriately.
After this incident, when the petitioner found that the complainant was not acting in accordance with his instructions, he threatened her with dire consequences. Out of fear of jeopardizing her career, the complainant refrained from reporting the incident, as the petitioner kept threatening to force her to leave the course. Thereafter, she came to know that her friends had also been touched inappropriately by the petitioner and requested a strict legal action against him. Hence, the police commenced an investigation and submitted the charge sheet.
The Court noted that the petitioner had been charged under Sections 354A/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and had preferred a discharge application before the trial court, which refused to discharge the petitioner. Considering the witness statements, the Court found consistency in the accusations. Considering the materials on record, the Court stated that it would be unwise to accept the petitioner’s contention that the investigation was a result of a mala fide complaint for vengeance.
Further, considering that the case was at the stage of consideration of charges, the Court refused to conduct a mini-trial. Considering the statements of the students who had stated the manner in which the petitioner made physical contact, unwelcome advances, and explicit sexual overtures, the Court held that the prosecution had prima facie substantiated the charges against the petitioner.
Thus, the Court dismissed the present application and refused to interfere with the proceedings’ continuation.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Kushagra Pandey, Mr. Pardeshia Munda
For Respondents – Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar
