Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 510
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Sujana, J.
Prasadam Raghu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.3348 of 2024
Decided On : 09-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: R Sushanth Reddy
For the Respondent: Public prosecutor
IMPORTANT POINT
Allegations of sexual harassment must meet specific legal criteria; mere comments about appearance do not constitute an offence under IPC, especially when there is unexplained delay in filing a complaint.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 354(A)(ii) and 509 – Quashing of proceedings – Allegations of sexual harassment against petitioners were found insufficient to constitute an offence under IPC – Delay of 39 days in filing complaint was unexplained, leading to quashing of proceedings – Continuation of proceedings deemed an abuse of process of law. (Paras 1, 7, 12, 13)
(B) Sexual Harassment – Definition and requirements under Section 354-A – The court emphasized that mere comments regarding appearance do not meet the threshold for sexual harassment as defined under IPC. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case :
The petitioners, employees of Star India Private Limited, were accused of making inappropriate comments to the complainant regarding her participation in a reality show, leading to a complaint filed 39 days post-incident.
Findings of Court :
The court found that the allegations did not constitute an offence under IPC and highlighted the unexplained delay in filing the complaint.
Issues : The main issues included whether the allegations constituted sexual harassment and the significance of the delay in filing the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi : The court ruled that the allegations did not satisfy the legal definition of sexual harassment, and the delay in filing the complaint undermined the credibility of the claims.
Result : Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
ORDER:
K. Sujana, J.
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.20976 of 2019 pending on the file of IIIAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The allegations leveled against the petitioners are under Sections 354 (A) (ii) and 509 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C’).
2. The facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner is an Assistant Vice President, PRO of Star India Private Limited (Star Maa Division) which is a leading broadcaster in India and is the exclusive licensee of media rights to various sporting events. The company along with its affiliated companies owns a network of about 65 TV channels in eight languages. The 2nd petitioner is the Vice President, Programming Department of Star India Private Limited (Star Maa Division).
3. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant gave a complaint on 13.07.2019 stating that one Ravikanth (A.1) called her in March, 2019 and informed her that she had been selected in Big Boss-3 show. Upon enquiry, as to how they got her number, she was informed that she has been a trending star on social media in recent times, as such, she was selected. Thereafter, A.1 met 2nd respondent at News Republic TV in the month of March, where, he explained the details of game and later on, the 2nd respondent met A.1, Abhishek (A.3) at Baskin Robins, Banjara Hills, where they discussed further details and also met 1st petitioner at Mint Leaf Restaurant at Srinagar Colony. The 1st petitioner who is a coordinator discussed about the rules and regulations of the show and also informed that the show would go on for 90 days staring from 21st of July. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent and 1st petitioner met two to three times and in the fourth meeting, apart from Raghu, the HR Manager of Star Maa was also present where they discussed about remuneration and the 2nd respondent was made to sign on bond papers and due to her prior commitments, she skimmed through the said papers and she was informed that she would be given papers in due course. Later the 2nd respondent was informed that she was selected for the Big Boss show and she should not take up any projects for a period of three months.
4. On 04.06.2019 the 2nd respondent met the petitioners in Mint Leaf Restaurant where the 2nd petitioner used filthy language at her sitting by the side of 1st petitioner and the following conversation took place between the 2nd petitioner and 2nd respondent :
Shyam : Why we should take you in big boss ?
Swetha Reddy : I did not ask you to select me in Big Boss.
Shyam : Not like that madam how will you satisfy our boss ?
Swetha Reddy : Why should I satisfy your boss.
Shyam : To come to Big Boss you should satisfy our boss ?
Swetha Reddy : I don’t have any need to satisfy your boss.
Shyam : When are you decreasing your body weight?
Swetha Reddy : Big Boss is a mind game, so that don’t need any relation with body, why are you asking about body shaping.
Shyam : To look attractive and beautiful, you need to impress our boss.
Swetha Reddy : to come to Big Boss, your boss needs zero size beauties and he takes who looks so.
Shyam : By seeing, who looks attractive only our boss gets impressed. Swetha Reddy: To impress your boss, I don’t have any interest to participate in the show.
Shyam : When you commit to impress our boss till the end of the show, they only we will take you.
5. In the complaint the 2nd respondent further alleged that after the above conversation, she left the place as the 2nd petitioner insulted her and she was mentally depressed. Hence, the 2nd respondent lodged the complaint. The police after conducting investigation filed charge sheet for the offences referred supra.
6. Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri T.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearin
