Judicial review of summoning orders in sexual harassment cases allows for independent assessment of evidence, affirming that initial exoneration by inquiry committees does not preclude criminal prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

“First my Fear; then my courtesy;

Last my speech.

My fear is your displeasure,

My courtesy my duty, and

My speech to beg your pardon.”

Shakespeare

1. This aptly sums up the life of a woman; be it home or office.

2. This case is a reflection of Society, where despite stringent legislation and repeated lamentation about gender neutrality and equality to provide safe work environment; unfortunately the psychology and mindset of the men in Work Place where sexual harassment continues to haunt the women at Work Place, especially when it involves “Power Dynamics”, has remained unchanged. The education or high Government position, is no protection to a woman from being subjected to sexual harassment. Respondent No.2, despite being a qualified lady who was a member of Kashmir Administrative Services, was also not spared of the harassment at her work place. This Petition is another glaring example of the struggle of a Woman wronged in her place of Work, to get justice.

3. Petitioner, Asif Hamid Khan has approach this Court under Article 226 /227 Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “ Cr.P.C .”) for setting aside of the Order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the Ld. ASJ, New Delhi who has upheld the summoning Order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the Ld. CMM, New Delhi, in FIR No. 16/2015 dated 10.02.2015 under Section 354A /506/509 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), whereby despite a Closure Report, cognizance has been taken under S.354- A/ S.509 IPC.

4. Briefly stated, Respondent No. 2, Smt. Shruti Bhardwaj, (hereinafter referred to as Complainant) had filed a Complaint dated 31.12.2014 in the Department of Hospitality and Protocol, Jammu and Kashmir Government, under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 which was forwarded to the Chairperson of the Complaint Committee and the Committee, vide Government Order No. 1312-GAD of 2013 dated 13.09.2013 read with Government Order No. 38-GAD of 2015 dated 12.01.2015 (hereinafter referred to as “POSH Act”).

5. On 11.02.2015, after examining all the witnesses, the Enquiry Committee submitted its Report, wherein it was observed that there are certain inconsistencies in the statement and the written submissions filed by the Respondent No. 2, Smt. Shruti Bhardwaj. The Enquiry concluded that the allegations made against the Petitioner, Asif Hamid Khan, were not established.

6. She had also filed a Complaint dated 06.01.2015 with the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi, on which FIR No. 16/2015 dated 10.02.2015 under Section 354A /506/509 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), was registered.

7. According to the Petitioner, the FIR No. 16/2015 was lodged on 10.02.2015, a day prior to the date of submission of the Report by the Committee i.e., on 11.02.2015.

8. Investigations were conducted in the FIR No. 16/2015 by the Police and Closure Report dated 21.05.2016 was filed on the ground that the Complaint seems to be motivated and there is no evidence on record which supported the allegations made by the Complainant in her Complaint against the Petitioner.

9. The Complainant preferred a Protest Petition against the Closure Report, which was disposed of vide Order dated 21.11.201