At the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to conduct an elaborate inquiry or weigh the evidence meticulously, but only needs to consider whether the materials on record would reasonably connect the accused with the crime.

In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the petitioner challenges correctness, legality and propriety of Annexure A20 order. As per that order, the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Payyannur dismissed CMP No.1452 of 2022 filed by the petitioner seeking discharge in C.C.No.650 of 2018.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Annexure A16 is the final report based on which C.C.No.650 of 2018 was instituted. The offences alleged in the final report and taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate are under Sections 354A (iv) and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ). The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the final report are as follows:

The petitioner was the head of the department of Microbiology, Medical College, Pariyaram. The 2nd respondent was an Assistant Professor working under the petitioner. During the period from 2008 to 2015, the petitioner made sexually coloured comments and threatened the 2nd respondent that she would be terminated unless she obeys the directions of the petitioner.

4.The petitioner contended before the learned Magistrate that the materials produced along with the final report would not make out any of the said offences. A few other contentions were also raised. But the learned Magistrate did not accept the contentions and held that the petitioner was liable to be tried for the offences under section 354A(iv) and 506(i) of the IPC .

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in regard to the same incidents, the 2nd respondent along with two of her colleagues, who are charge witnesses No.2 and 3, lodged complaints before the Internal Complaints Committee(Harassment Committee) as early as on 16.02.2015. The grievances in the said complaint were resolved by the Internal Complaints Committee which was stated to by charge witness No.6 who was the Chairperson of that Committee. Although sexual assault was also alleged in the complaint based on which the FIR was registered, that offence was deleted after investigation.

6. The alleged offences occurred before 16.02.2015, but when the crime was registered only on 29.03.2018 and final report submitted on 08.07.2018, the delay vitiated the prosecution. In fact, the cognizance of the offences was taken beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 468 of the Code. It is further submitted that just before filing the complaint, the petitioner had lodged in December 2017 a complaint before the Chancellor of the University alleging that the 2nd respondent forged his signature and submitted a request before the University. A crime was registered in regard to that forgery. In retaliation this case was initiated by the 2nd respondent without any basis.

7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that having the learned Magistrate taken cognizance of the offence, no contention concerning limitation can be raised now. Charge witnesses No.2 and 3 happened to give statements deviating from their complaint before the Internal Complaints Committee since they were influenced by the petitioner. It is submitted that the facts revealed from the statement of the 2nd respondent and the final report constitute offences under Sections 354A (iv) and 506 (i) of the IPC . The truth or falsity of the charge has to be tested at the trial and the order of the trial court declining the plea of discharge cannot be found fault with.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor supports the contentions of the 2nd respondent. It is pointed out that overt acts of the petitioner constituting the offence of sexual harassment spread over to the period after 2015 and therefore, there cannot be a bar of limitation to take cognizance. The statement of the 2nd respondent would reveal the offences alleged against the petitioner. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitl