Cannot Say That Paperweight Is Of Particular Gender: Bombay HC Quashes Criminal Case Against CIDCO Engineer
The Bombay High Court while quashing a criminal case against CIDCO Engineer observed that the paper weight which he allegedly touched in front of female employees cannot be said to be of a particular gender.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Application initially seeking quashing of the First Information Report and by way of amendment, for quashing the charge sheet and the proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar observed, “If we consider the photographs of the said statue, then we cannot say that it is of a particular gender. Further, the panchnama, at the time of the seizure of that article, also does not say that it could be identified from the said paperweight that it is a statue of a nude lady.”
Advocate AS Bajaj appeared for the Applicant and Advocate SV Kulkarni appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Applicant, a senior officer, was accused by respondent No.2 of having a paperweight shaped like a naked woman on his desk, which she claimed he used to outrage her modesty when she visited his cabin. After a complaint, the Vishakha Committee found no evidence of sexual harassment. She filed an FIR, following the committee's decision against her.
The Court relied on the decision in State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and others 1992 and observed, “One of the principle on which this Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; if the FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive then it can be quashed and set aside.”
The Court noted that the copy of the order passed by the Vishakha Committee was brought on record which showed that by giving full opportunity, the Committee had concluded that there are no acts of sexual harassment at the workplace.
Therefore, as per the Court when such documents are available, then certainly it can exercise its powers for quashing the FIR.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Application and quashed the proceedings.
Cause Title: Pravin Marotirao Daroli v. State of Maharashra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:24385-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate AS Bajaj
Respondent: APP V.K. Kotecha and Advocate S.V. Kulkarni