The absence of specific intent or evidence in harassment allegations under Section 509 IPC, reinforced by prior exoneration, necessitates quashing of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT : 

Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on October, 10 2018 the opposite party no.2 herein lodged an FIR alleging commission of offence punishable u/s 354/114 of the IPC against four accused persons including petitioner herein interalia on the allegation that the accused persons being aided and abated with each other, caused harassment to the opposite party no.2/de facto complainant at her workplace.

2. Accordingly the instant proceeding being Taltala P.S. case no. 124 dated October 13, 2018 corresponding to GR Case no. 1153 of 2018 was registered for investigation under section 354/114 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted charge sheet under section 509 of the IPC and the learned Court below was pleased to take cognizance and transmitted the same to the court below for trial.

3. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the present petitioner is innocent and no way connected with any offence, far less the offences alleged herein. The complainant/opposite party no.2 had joined the employment of M/s. Benett Coleman and company Ltd. at its Delhi office as a trainee reporter in the year 2015 and thereafter took a transfer to Kolkata in December, 2015 and quit the establishment at the end of July, 2017.

4. Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that on October, 13 2018 i.e. almost after 1 year and 2 months, she resigned from the establishment and lodged the complaint against the petitioner alleging that she was subjected to harassment at her workplace and that she had also faced severe bullying by the petitioners female cronie.

5. He further submits that on October 22, 2018 the de facto complainant also filed a complaint with the internal complaints committee of her former employer, alleging Sexual Harassment by the petitioner on her in terms of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.(in short Act of 2013). Although said complaint before the internal complaints committee was time barred but the said committee proceeded with the same and conducted a detailed and thorough enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. However, since no evidence could be gathered against the petitioner, the internal complaints committee exonerated the petitioner of all charges levelled against him.

6. Mr. Bhattacharya further argued that from the FIR and the charge sheet, there emanates no iota of allegation or suspicion against the petitioner. In order to attract the provision of section 509 of the IPC, the complainant ought to have mentioned that specific details of the words, sounds, or gesture by which the petitioner allegedly insulted her modesty or how and when he intruded upon the complainant’s modesty.

7. He further submits that the instant FIR was lodged with a view to spite the petitioner herein because of a private and personal grudge such as professional rivalry, strenuous relation and also with an oblique motive of implicating the petitioner in long and arduous criminal proceedings, which amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

8. He further argued that on perusal of charge sheet it can be ascertained that there is no iota of evidence on the basis of which cognizance of the matter can be taken or the matter can be allowed to be proceeded with. From the allegations levelled in the impugned charge