The court docket cautioned the petitioner towards taking any retaliatory measures which may hinder the complainant’s research.
The court docket noticed that the accused’s actions had been restricted to resisting the lady’s entry contained in the auditorium and there was a transparent lack of intention for sexual harassment
The Kerala Excessive Court docket just lately quashed a First Data Report (FIR) towards Dr. P.Okay. Child, Director of Youth Welfare and Syndicate member at Cochin College of Science and Know-how (CUSAT), who was accused of sexually harassing a feminine pupil throughout a youth competition.
The court docket held that the bodily contact that occurred through the incident was not an unwelcome or express sexual advance, however somewhat a part of a resistance effort to take care of self-discipline.
Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the court docket, was listening to a case stemming from an incident on March 1, 2024, through the ‘Sargam’ Youth Competition at CUSAT. The complainant, a legislation pupil and stage convener, claimed that after the programme concluded at 9 pm, she tried to retrieve an oil lamp from the stage with one other pupil, Sharan. Dr Child (petitioner) allegedly stopped her, turned agitated, and forcefully grabbed her, touching her breast twice regardless of her objections. The complainant additional alleged that Dr Child threatened her, stating that if she reported the incident, her research can be disrupted. The FIR charged Dr Child underneath Sections 354 (assault or legal power to a girl with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A(1) (sexual harassment), and 506 (legal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Advocate Salim V.S., representing the petitioner, argued that the FIR was lodged 127 days after the alleged incident, suggesting that the delay indicated the grievance was filed with malicious intent. It was additional highlighted that the college had carried out strict tips following a deadly stampede at an occasion in 2023. These tips, accepted by the college’s Syndicate, required all occasions to finish by 9 pm, and the petitioner was chargeable for guaranteeing compliance through the competition. It was additionally contended that the complainant was trying to bypass these guidelines by coming into the auditorium after the designated time, resulting in an altercation when the petitioner prevented her entry. The petitioner maintained that any bodily contact was incidental and arose from his efforts to implement the rules, not as an intentional act of harassment.
Conversely, the complainant, represented by Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth (for the state) and Advocate Asif M.A., maintained that the petitioner’s actions had been intentional, amounting to sexual harassment and intimidation. The prosecution, backed by the findings of the Inner Grievance Committee’s inquiry, contended that the case warranted a radical investigation to uncover the reality, and due to this fact, the FIR shouldn’t be quashed at this stage.
The court docket, after analyzing the info, discovered that the altercation gave the impression to be a results of Dr Child’s efforts to implement self-discipline as per the college’s tips, and there was no proof suggesting an intention to outrage the complainant’s modesty or interact in sexual harassment.
Additional, the court docket noticed that the important parts required to represent offences underneath Sections 354 and 354A(1) of the IPC weren’t established. “It couldn’t be held, prima facie, that the petitioner herein had any intention to outrage modesty of the defacto complainant in any method or to harass her sexually. That aside, the bodily contact as a part of such resistance couldn’t be held because the one which superior unwelcome and express sexual overtures,” the court docket famous.
The court docket additionally took under consideration the numerous delay in submitting the FIR and acknowledged: “In view of the matter, the FIR registered after 4 months and 6 days after 3 months and 26 days of lodging the grievance earlier than the Vice Chancellor as an afterthought lacks bona fides.”
Consequently, the court docket allowed the petition to quash the case. Nonetheless, the court docket cautioned the petitioner towards taking any retaliatory measures which may hinder the complainant’s research and famous that any such actions can be handled with due seriousness.
