The findings of an internal committee do not invalidate ongoing criminal proceedings or the need for judicial evaluation of evidence.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.131 of 2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Thiruvananthapuram. Pursuant to a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent FIR No.1411/2016 of Museum Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354 A and 354 D of the IPC against this petitioner. Now the petitioner by filing this application is assailing the order dated 25.03.2021 of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate dismissing his petition filed under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.

2. The gravamen of the allegation in the crime registered against the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner was working as the Vice President of “AIR INDIA SATS”, Thiruvananthapuram. The defacto complainant/2nd respondent was working as a probationary under him. While so, in the year 2015,the petitioner has invited her for a dinner to a hotel at Thiruvananthapuram. When she reached there accepting his invitation, during the conversation he asked about her breast size and when she did not respond, he said it may be 38. Then he told that if she is willing to come over to Delhi, he could offer her a better career prosperity. Then in the month of April, 2016 when she came to his cabin with certain office files he tried to touch on her body with evil intention. But she kept quite even after these two incidents. Later, when she realized that her probation was not declared alleging that her work was unsatisfactory, she filed a complaint before CMD. While the proceedings were pending, she preferred a complaint before the Museum Police and thus the case was registered. The investigation of the case was completed and charge sheet was filed and thus crime was registered against him for having committed offences punishable under Sec.354 A and 354 D of the Indian Penal Code .

3. While the case was pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, he moved this application under Sec 173 (8) Cr.P.C which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 25.3.2021. The said order is under challenge in this Crl.M.C and the prayer sought for is to quash the order (Ann.A11) and to order further investigation.

4. Heard Sri.Sasthamangalam S Ajith Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sreeja V the learned Public Prosecutor and Smt Maitrayi S Hegde, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

5. Specifically, the offences alleged against this petitioner, who is arraigned as the sole accused are under Sec.354, 354 A(1)(i)(ii)

(iv) and 354 D (1)(i) of the IPC .

6. Further investigation of the case was sought for by this petitioner mainly on the ground that in the enquiry conducted by the committee, it was found that her allegations are untrue and baseless. The defacto complainant had filed a complaint of sexual harassment before the CMD of AIR INDIA SATS by an e-mail on 2.7.2016. The complaint of the defacto complainant was enquired by the committee and a report was submitted on 5.10.2016. As per the report the committee has observed that no case of sexual harassment was made out in the enquiry and the allegation raised by her against the petitioner were not sufficient to conclude that there was sexual harassment. Annexure 4 is the copy of the report submitted by the committee after conducting the enquiry.

7. The enquiry was conducted by the committee formed under The Sexual Harassment Of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ('Act 2013' for short) and thereafter she had approached the police with the complaint without any merits is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has also a case that she is in the habit of making such type of allegations, more specific sexual harassment against her employer and on an earlier occasion at her instance another FIR was registered against the employer of 'Sherwood communication' where she was working. The said complaint was later compromised and Annexure 5 is the document evidencing the same. Annexure 6 is the