Criminal proceedings cannot persist based on allegations previously reviewed by an Internal Complaints Committee, which found them unsubstantiated, establishing an abuse of process in continuing prosecution.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 354(A), 500 and 504 - Sexual harassment allegations - The Internal Complaints Committee established no wrongdoing by the accused, resulting in a conclusive finding exonerating them. Hence, the criminal proceedings were quashed by the High Court. (Paras 4, 5, 16)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Criminal prosecution cannot continue when the same facts were adjudicated in prior proceedings leading to exoneration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's precedent reinforces this principle. (Paras 11, 16)

Facts of the case:
Complaints of sexual harassment were made against colleagues in a corporate setting. An ICC inquiry found the accusations unsubstantiated, leading to a criminal prosecution which was deemed unwarranted.

Findings of Court:
The court identified that any ongoing prosecution led to an abuse of process, given the prior findings of the ICC.

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed based on previous exoneration by the ICC for identical allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that criminal prosecution on the same set of allegations post-IC findings amounted to an abuse of court processes.

Result: Both petitions are allowed, and the FIRs are quashed.

ORAL ORDER

Both these petitions are filed by the accused persons seeking quashing of the impugned complaint and FIR in Crime No.447/2024 filed by the 2^nd respondent – de facto complainant for alleged offences punishable under Sections 354 , 354A, 500 and 504 of IPC and for other reliefs.

2. The 2^nd respondent – de facto complainant was working as a product manager in General Electric Company from 24.05.2021 onwards and the petitioners are her colleagues also employed in the same company. The 2^nd respondent filed the instant complaint which was registered as an FIR in Crime No.447/2024 dated 08.07.2024 against five accused persons. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.9417/2024 is arraigned as accused No.1, while petitioners in Crl.P.No.9042/2024 are arraigned as accused Nos. 2 to 5 respectively.

3. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for 1^st respondent – State and learned counsel for 2^nd respondent and perused the material on record.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in addition to the impugned complaint and FIR, the 2^nd respondent had also instituted proceedings under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act , 2013 (for short ‘the POSH Act’) against accused No.1 – Ayan Kumar Chaudhary. When the present petition in Crl.P.No.9417/2024 filed by him was preferred on 23.08.2024, the said proceedings under the POSH Act were pending consideration. However, subsequently, during the pendency of the present petition, the POSH Committee submitted an Inquiry Report bearing GE HEALTH CARE Case No.BAKO-2024-718 dated 07.10.2024 coming to the conclusion that the charges leveled by the 2^nd respondent – complainant were not proved and that she had not established her allegations and finding that the petitioner – accused No.1 was not guilty, the POSH committee closed the proceedings.

5. The material on record discloses that the said finding recorded by the POSH committee and the report submitted by it exonerating the petitioner – accused No.1 of the alleged offences has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the 2^nd respondent, as a consequence of which, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.

6. Under identical circumstances, in the case of Usha Padmini & Anr. vs. State of Karnakata – Crl.P.No.7492/2016 & connected matters Dated 28.01.2019, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:-

“ Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.30280/2015 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru have sought to quash the said proceedings registered against them for the offences punishable under sections 354A, 504 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondent No.2 - party-in-person and learned SPP-II on behalf of respondent No.1 – State in both the petitions.

3. The respondent No.2 was working as a Technical Specialist in Alcatel-Lucent Technologies India Ltd., since 16.02.2015. Accused No.1 Sri.Sumanta Banerjee was the Technical Manager and accused No.2 Smt.Usha Padmini was the Director of the said Company. Accused No.1 was the reporting authority of respondent No.2.

4 (i) On 20.07.2015, respondent No.2 sent an email to one Priya Chakrabarti, the H.R. Manager, complaining of certain harassment at the work place. The said email reads as under:

“As you can see from emails, this is a severe work level harassment.

(a) Sexual harassment – I would put the charges on both Usha and Sumanta together. You can see Sumanta’s sitting position, with legs open, standing close to you when you are sitting (in lab), position is very uncomfortable, can lead to accident.

(b) Work Level Harassment – Emails are flowing, latest one is also attached alongwith. I would like to add also Usha to this. Both are harassing. She is there to mediate, however, both of them are already on the same page to harass me.

(ii) This email was replied by Priya Chakrabarti on 21.07.2015 as under:-

“

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22784

Criminal proceedings cannot persist based on allegations previously reviewed by an Internal Complaints Committee, which found them unsubstantiated, establishing an abuse of process in continuing prosecution.

Cases Referred (1)