SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 44

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Deepak Singh @ Dipak Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State Of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondent
CRR 851 of 2022
Decided on : 09-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pritam Roy, Ms. Triparna Roy.
For the Respondent: Mr. Antarikhya Basu, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Debanjan Ghosh, Ms. Chitrali Roy Chowdhury.

The court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner due to lack of prima facie evidence and findings of mala fide intent behind the allegations.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 354A, 354C, 354D, and 509 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - The petitioner, a commandant, faced allegations of sexual harassment from an assistant commandant, which were found to be false by an internal committee - The court found no prima facie case against the petitioner, ruling that the allegations were made with mala fide intent to divert attention from disciplinary actions against the complainant - The proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process. (Paras 1, 3, 26, 27)

(B) Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC - The High Court has the power to quash proceedings if they are manifestly attended with mala fides or if they constitute an abuse of the process of the court. (Paras 15, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of sexual harassment by the opposite party after disciplinary actions were initiated against her for misconduct. An internal committee exonerated the petitioner, leading to the current proceedings being deemed malicious. (Paras 2, 3, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence supporting the allegations and ruled that the case was initiated with mala fide intent, thus quashing the proceedings. (Paras 26, 27)

Issues: The main issues included whether the allegations constituted a prima facie case of sexual harassment and the legitimacy of the proceedings against the petitioner. (Paras 3, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of prima facie evidence against the petitioner warranted quashing the proceedings, as they were initiated with ulterior motives. (Paras 24, 25)

Result: The proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :

1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding being GR case no.1527 of 2021 arising out of Haldia PS case no.106 of 2021 dated 17.08.2021 under Sections 354, 354A, 354C, 354D and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 corresponding to zero FIR lodged at Navi, Mumbai being CR no.0231 of 2021 dated 21.07.2021 giving rise to chargesheet being no.01 of 2022 dated 05.01.2022 under Sections 354, 354A, 354C, 354D and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Haldia, Purba Medinipur.

2. The petitioner’s case is as follows:-

a. He is the commandant of Coast Guard, Haldia. He has a long service carrier of 21 years and during his tenure as Commanding Officer there were four male and two female Officers under him.

b. On 8th day of December, 2019 when the petitioner was on sanctioned leave at home station Dhanbad with entire family, he got a call from unit that the then Assistant Commandant i.e., the present opposite party no. 2 has disobeyed the lawful command of officiating Commanding Officer and refused to go on patrolling plant for Maritime Border Security and due to her denial to go for sailing/patrolling security routine was compromised. The officiating Commanding Officer recommended for disciplinary action to headquarters after detail enquiry it was decided by headquarters to constitute a disciplinary action against the opposite party number 2 as earlier also there was report against the opposite party number 2 of misconduct.

c. In order to divert the attention from the incident of 8th December, 2019, the opposite party no. 2 put a false charge of sexual harassment against the petitioner on 19th day of December, 2019.

d. On the basis of the complaint of the opposite party no. 2, the headquarter constituted an internal complaint committee as per Vishakha Guidelines by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

e. The committee carried out detail/exhaustive enquiry against the petitioner and come to the conclusion that the opposite party has put false allegation against the petitioner and he has been exonerated from all the false charges and the committee decided to close the case.

f. The opposite party no. 2 filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the committee but the said appeal was dismissed.

g. All the male Officers and another female Officer viz., Sneha Khatayat had given a written complaint against the opposite party no. 2 for indiscipline, misconduct and abnormal behaviour.

h. The opposite party no. 2 was then transferred to Mumbai and she lodged the complaint at Navi, Mumbai which was treated as zero FIR and the same was sent to Haldia Police Station and the same was registered as Haldia Police Station Case No. 106 dated 17/08/2021 under Sections 354/354A/354C/354D/509 of the Indian Penal Code.

i. After completion of investigation Police submitted Charge Sheet being number 01 of 2022 dated 05/01/2022 under sections 354/354A/354C/354D/509 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner further states that on the basis of self same allegation the petitioner has been exonerated by the internal committee and therefore the instant case has been lodged against the petitioner with mala fide intention, hence the prayer for quashing.

4. The written complaint of the de facto complainant runs into 52 pages.

5. Supplementary affidavit dated 1st April, 2022 has been filed by the petitioner annexing the entire documents relating to the proceedings before the Internal Complaints Committee (for short “ICC”) and also the documents related to the appeal against the said order by the de facto complainant.

6. It is further stated by the petitioner along with documents in support thereof that the de facto complainant herein lodged another complaint against Sk. Vaidya (D.I.G. Coast Guard) and A.D.G. Rajan Bargotra in connection with physical and mental harassment at the workplace at Trombay Police Station,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top