Summoning of an accused under IPC Section 354 requires clear evidence; unexplained delays and lack of corroborating witnesses render allegations insufficient.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.) for setting aside the impugned orders dated 07.06.2010 and 15.09.2010, whereby vide order dated 07.06.2010, the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C for summoning, trying and prosecuting the accused for the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC") was dismissed by the learned ACMM in Criminal Complaint No. 805/1, and thereafter, vide order dated 15.09.2010, the revision petition filed against the dismissal of the complaint was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini in Criminal Revision Petition No. 26 of 2010.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was working as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with Aryabhat Polytechnic under the supervision of Respondent no. 2 who allegedly used to call her inside his office to make phone calls or to keep the files of the office. On 12.09.2008, the office superintendent Ms. Veena Bhutani had asked the petitioner to go the office of the respondent no. 2 for making a call to J.A.O. Accordingly, the petitioner had gone to the office of the respondent no. 2 and made the said call. Thereafter, it is alleged that when she gave receiver to the respondent no. 2, he with bad intention had deliberately caught her hand and tried to outrage her modesty. The petitioner has also alleged that she somehow managed to free her hand from Respondent No.2 and told him that he does not have any manners, but he threatened her that if she discloses this fact to anybody, he will get her transferred.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she disclosed this incident to Ms. Veena Bhutani but she did not pay any heed to her request, and rather told the petitioner that it was her personal matter and she should sort it out herself. Thereafter, the petitioner filed complaint dated 16.09.2008 to Joint Secretary of Directorate of Technical Training Education on which no action was taken, and later the petitioner sent a complaint to the Chief Secretary, NCT Delhi on which no action was taken either.

4. It is further alleged by the petitioner that she then made a representation to the Lt. Governor, pursuant to which a vigilance inquiry was set up, however, no result came out of such enquiry and the committee held that charges of sexual harassment against Respondent No.2 were not proved. Thereafter, the complainant/petitioner was constrained to lodge a complaint against the respondent no. 2 with the SHO, Police Station Model Town on 01.07.2009, however, no action was taken against the respondent no. 2 who retired on 31.12.2009. Thereafter, she filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the accused under Section 354 of IPC. The learned ACMM dismissed the same on 07.06.2010. The relevant para of the said order dated 07.06.2010 reads as under:

"...4. I have heard the arguments by Ld counsel for the complainant Sh Alok Srivastava adv. on the point of summoning and perused the records carefully.

5. It is the an admitted case of the complainant that the alleged incident took place on 12.9.08 and she made a complaint to SHO, PS Model Town in this regard only on 01.07.09. No explanation has been given by the complainant for this gap of 10 months between the date of alleged incident and the date of the complaint. Even otherwise it is not clear as to why the complainant remained quite for the above-said period of 10 month. Further there appears to be an improvement in the deposition of complainant as CW-1 as compared to her complaint dated 01.