Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Cal) 1179

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt Paul, J.
Professor Dr. Tapan Kumar Biswas & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2020
Decided On : 16-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Sibaji Das, Advocate, Prasun Kumar Datta, Advocate, Md. Kutubuddin, Advocate, S. Deb Roy, Advocate

The burden of proof in a criminal proceeding is different from that in a departmental proceeding. The court must treat complainants of sexual harassment and assault sensitively and ensure a fair trial. The court should not quash criminal proceedings at an early stage unless there is no substance in the allegations or the material produced by the prosecution.

Headnote:
IPC - Section 354/506/509/34 - The petitioners were charged with offences under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), Section 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), and Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzed the relevant legal provisions and their applicability to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a professor and a research scholar at Kalyani University, were charged with offences under Section 354/506/509/34 IPC based on a complaint filed by the complainant, an M Phil student. The internal complaints committee (ICC) of the university had previously found the petitioner not guilty. The petitioners sought to quash the chargesheet, claiming it was false and maliciously instituted. The complainant alleged that she was harassed by the petitioners and received threat calls. The court examined the findings of the ICC and the evidence on record and found that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioners. The court also noted that the complainant did not receive a fair treatment before the ICC. The court held that the criminal proceedings should not be quashed at this stage and that the petitioners should face trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the findings of the ICC, the evidence on record, and the relevant legal principles. The court emphasized that the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding is different from that in a departmental proceeding and that the two proceedings have different objectives. The court also highlighted the importance of treating complainants of sexual harassment and assault sensitively and ensuring a fair trial. The court referred to relevant precedents and legal provisions, including the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and the guidelines laid down in Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997 AIR) (SC) 3011. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioners and that the criminal proceedings should not be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the criminal proceedings should not be quashed at this stage as there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioners. The court emphasized the importance of treating complainants of sexual harassment and assault sensitively and ensuring a fair trial. The court also highlighted the difference between the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding and a departmental proceeding. The court referred to relevant precedents and legal provisions, including the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and the guidelines laid down in Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997 AIR) (SC) 3011.
Result: The criminal revisional application seeking to quash the chargesheet was dismissed. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioners and that the criminal proceedings should not be quashed at this stage. The court also noted that the complainant did not receive a fair treatment before the internal complaints committee.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The present revision is against an order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2, Kalyani, Nadia in G.R. Case No. 614 of 2018 with a prayer for quashing of the chargesheet in Kalyani P.S. Case No. 288 of 2018 for offence punishable under Section 354/506/509/34 IPC. Petitioner no. 1/accused is a professor of Kalyani University and the petitioner no. 2 is a research scholar in the said University under the same Department of Folklore. The opposite party no. 2/complainant is an M Phil student of the same department in the said University.

2. The complainant/opposite party no. 2 filed a written compliant with the Kalyani P.S. on 31.07.2018 stating therein that since her admission in Kalyani University, the petitioner no. 1 has misbehaved with her and asked for sexual favours in and outside of the classroom for enabling her to complete her research successfully. The petitioner no. 2 who used to do research under the petitioner no. 1 also did the same with the opposite party no. 2. Over the said issue, the opposite party no. 2 made two complaints dated 09.11.2017 and 17.11.2017 respectively to the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of the University. However, since no step was taken, she made representation again on 20.03.2018 before the Presiding Officer, Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and the earlier two authorities. She made another representation on 21.03.2018 to the Hon'ble Governor and to Minister in Charge, Department of Higher Education and also the UGC.

3. The complaint dated 17.11.2017 made by the complainant to the University was taken up by the Internal Complaints Committee and after a thorough inquiry, the petitioner no. 1 was held 'not guilty' and was discharged from all charges on 02.07.2018.

4. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 alleged that even during pendency of the said proceedings she received threat calls from different persons. It has also been stated that the petitioner no. 2 since the day of discharge of the petitioner no. 1 by the ICC has been rejoicing on social media.

5. The petitioner's case before this Court is that on filing of the charge sheet cognizance was taken mechanically by the learned Magistrate. It is also the case of the petitioner that the complaint was only in respect of petitioner no. 2 but the petitioner no. 1 has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the internal complaints committee not only discharged the petitioner no. 1 from all charges but also recommended some restrictions upon the complainant. It is the case of the petitioner that the said complaint is false, maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance out of private and personal grudge due to the discharge from sexual harassment charge by the internal complaints committee. It is submitted that the continuation of the present proceedings would be abuse of the process of Court.

6. Mr. Sibaji Das learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the materials collected during investigation does not show any 'mens rea' on the part of the petitioners. That the ingredients required to constitute the offence as alleged are totally absent in the present case. The allegations are totally false and the cognizance in the case has been taken in a mechanical manner and if the present proceedings are allowed to be continued, there will be serious miscarriage of justice against the petitioners and as such in view of the findings of the ICC and the materials on record the present proceedings are liable to be quashed.

7. Inspite of due service upon the opposite party no. 2 and the appearance of her counsel on 16.11.2022, none has appeared on her behalf before this Court on the date of final hearing that is on 28.11.2022.

8. Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta learned Counsel for the State has produced a copy of the case diary and has submitted that there is sufficient evidence against both the accused persons/peti