The court held that an allegation of abuse in the name of caste must be supported by evidence and cannot be made as an afterthought or with mala fide intention. The court also held that a delay in lodging an FIR can be explained by the conduct of the complainant and the circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

1. Both the criminal revisions filed by two sets of accused persons praying for quashment of FIR and consequent charge-sheet filed against them were heard analogously and this Court delivers the following composite judgment as hereunder.

2. On 18th October, 2022, the opposite party No.2 Miss Sagarika Malakar lodged a written complaint stating, inter alia, that she has been working for gain in Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. situated at Sector V, Salt Lake. It was alleged in the written complaint that since April, 2022, she noticed that one Asmaat Zaheer, Audit head of the said organization was staring at her in a disgraceful manner. Many times the said Asmaat Zaheer commented on her sitting posture and being a woman she felt all such comments humiliating and embarrassing.

3. On 28th July, 2022, the opposite party No.2 went to one Goutam Chatterjee, manager to help her to file her IT return. At the relevant point of time, the said Goutam Chatterjee was not in his cabin and one Souren Mukherjee who was present in the table asked her bring her laptop to help her filing IT return. As soon as she started working on her laptop being helped by Souren Mukherjee, a group of about 15 persons surrounded her under the leadership of Jaidip Chatterjee (HR Head), Asmaat Zaheer (Audit Head) and Binoy Kumar Mishra (Legal Head)(The abovenamed accused are the petitioners in CRR No.4338 of 2022). Binoy Mishra started shouting and abusing at the defacto complainant saying that she was transferring confidential data to Souren Mukherjee. The abovenamed person abused her with filthy language saying “Schedule Caste and Choto Jaat er Barabari”. The defacto complainant tried to convince them but the accused persons did not give any opportunity to her to place her version. They also abused her by uttering sexually coloured statement publicly. Thereafter on being directed by Binoy Mishra and Asmaat Zaheer, one Rajesh Dhawan and Khemraj Pandey of Audit team and one Moumita Jana of HR department started video-graphy of the entire incident. The laptop of the opposite party No.2 was also seized and after 15 minutes it was returned to her. Throughout the entire incident, Jaidip Chatterjee was present at the spot as a silent spectator.

4. On the date of incident itself, the opposite party No.2 lodged a complaint before the internal POSH Committee. She also sent a mail on 30th July, 2022 to Jaidip Chatterjee (H.R Head) stating entire incident seeking justice. However, neither the POSH Committee nor Jaidip Chatterjee took any step on the complaint lodged by the opposite party No.2. Being afraid and severe mental shock perpetrated upon her by Binoy Mishra, Asmaat Zaheer and Jaidip Chatterjee the defacto complainant stopped going to her office.

5. Subsequently she being accompanied by her mother went to jurisdictional police station to lodge a complaint, she narrated the incident to L.S.I Aparna Das. Then the said police called Jaideep Chatterjee at Electronic Comlex P.S. After some time, Jaideep Chattejee, Asmaat Zaheer, Binoy Mishra, Moumita Jana, Ashis Ghosh, Subarnabinda Roy and others came down to the P.S and in presence of the police officer insisted upon the defacto complainant to withdraw her complaint. They also threatened her to cause harm of her person and reputation. Mr. Jaideep Chattejee openly put pressure upon her and her mother to settle the dispute amicably and they were forced to submit a written declaration of withdrawal of her complaint.

6. Then on 18th October, 2022, the defacto complainant lodged the complaint on the basis of which FIR case No.162 of 2022 and under Sections 354/354A/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)s/3(1)(w)(ii) of the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 were registered against the accused persons/petitioners.

7. Initially, the petitioners prayed for quashment of the investigational process but after filing of charge-sheet, the petitioners filed supplementary affidavits challenging leg