Back
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Madhushree Datta – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
THE APPEAL
1. By a common impugned judgment and order dated 31st July, 20191[impugned order], a learned Judge of the High Court of Karnataka2[High Court] dismissed Criminal Petition No. 3961 of 2015 (Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.) and Criminal Petition No. 3962 of 2015 (Madhushree Datta vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.), both filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733[Cr. PC], seeking quashing of the chargesheet filed under Section 173(2), Cr. PC and the entire proceedings in Case Crime No. 53073 of 2014, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore4[ACMM].
2. The accused appellants5[appellants] - Madhushree Datta6[first accused] and Badrinarayana Jaganathan7[second accused] - have taken exception to the impugned order by presenting these appeals.
FACTS
3. The proceedings before the ACMM have, as its genesis, an incident of 25th October, 2013. The second respondent as complainant8[complainant] lodged a complaint dated 26th October, 2013 with the Sub-Inspector of Police, H.A.L. Police Station, Marathahalli, Bangalore, against M/s Juniper Networks India Private Limited9 [Company] and the app
Hurt, insult, criminal intimidation and use of filthy language – There is no basis for prosecution to set forth concept of liability of employer or for overt acts of its employees – To establish ingr....
The absence of specific intent or evidence in harassment allegations under Section 509 IPC, reinforced by prior exoneration, necessitates quashing of criminal proceedings.
The court held that reprimanding an employee for workplace discipline does not constitute an intentional insult under IPC Section 504, and quashed the chargesheet due to lack of prima facie evidence.
(1) Attempt to outrage modesty – To apply Section 354, IPC, offence must be committed against a woman; criminal force must be applied against her with intent to outrage her modesty.(2) For offence of....
The court established that complaints of harassment under IPC Sections 354 and 509 must demonstrate assault and intent, which were absent; thus, quashing the FIR to prevent abuse of legal process.
The court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner due to lack of prima facie evidence and findings of mala fide intent behind the allegations.
The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner, finding no evidence of sexual harassment or conspiracy, emphasizing the lack of mens rea and the frivolous nature of the allegations.
While considering discharge application, Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not – In such proceedings, Court is not to hold mini trial b....
Criminal intimidation requires specific threats intended to induce alarm; general expressions of sympathy do not establish the basis for charges under relevant sections of IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
