Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
XYZ – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No 1184 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No 1674 of 2022)
Decided on : 05-08-2022
(A) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Protection and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Section 11 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 154 and 173 – Sexual harassment at workplace – It is every police officer’s bounden duty to carry out his or her functions in a public-spirited manner – Police must be cognizant of fact that they are usually first point of contact for a victim of a crime or a complainant – They must abide by law and enable smooth registration of FIR – They must treat all members of public in a fair and impartial manner – This is all the more essential in cases of sexual harassment or violence, where victims (who are usually women) face great societal stigma when they attempt to file a complaint – Women’s families often do not approve of initiating criminal proceedings in cases of sexual harassment – Various quarters of society attempt to persuade survivor not to register a complaint or initiate other formal proceedings, and they often succeed – Visiting police station and interacting with police officers can be an intimidating experience for many – This discomfort is often compounded if reason for visiting police station is to complain of a sexual offence – Police ought not to create yet another obstacle by declining to register FIR despite receiving a complaint regarding sexual harassment – Rather, they should put complainant at ease and try to create an atmosphere free from fear – They ought to be sensitive to her mental state and fact that she may have recently been subjected to a traumatic experience – Whether or not offence complained of is made out is to be determined at stage of investigation and / or trial – If, after conducting investigation, police find that no offence is made out, they may file a B Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. – However, it is not open to them to decline to register an FIR – Police officers cannot exercise any discretion when they receive a complaint which discloses commission of a cognizable offence. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 156(3) – Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Protection and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Section 11 – Direction for Police investigation – Sexual harassment at workplace – Magistrate has wide powers under Section 156(3) which ought to be exercised towards meeting the ends of justice – Use of word “may” implies that Magistrate has discretion in directing police to investigate or proceeding with the case as a complaint case – But this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must be guided by judicial reasoning – In such cases, where not only does Magistrate find commission of a cognizable offence alleged on a prima facie reading of complaint but also such facts are brought to Magistrate’s notice which clearly indicate need for police investigation, discretion granted in Section 156(3) can only be read as it being Magistrate’s duty to order Police to investigate. In cases where there is alleged to be documentary or other evidence in physical possession of accused or other individuals which police would be best placed to investigate and retrieve using its powers under Cr.P.C., matter ought to be sent to Police for investigation. (Paras 21, 23 and 24)
(C) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Protection and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Section 11 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Sexual harassment at workplace – It is important for all courts to remain cognizant of fact that legal process tends to be even more onerous for complainants who are potentially dealing with trauma and societal shame due to unwarranted stigma attached to victims of sexual harassment and assault – In cases alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault or any similar criminal allegation wherein victim has possibly already been traumatized, Courts should not further burden complainant and should press upon police to investigate – Due regard must be had to fact that it is not possible for complainant to retrieve important evidence regarding her complaint – It may not be possible to arrive at truth of matter in absence of such evidence – Complainant would then be required to prove her case without being able to bring relevant evidence (which is potentially of great probative value) on record, which would be unjust – JMFC ought to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to direct police to investigate – Recourse to jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was warranted – Judgment of High Court set aside – Investigation shall be supervised by a woman officer not below rank of Superintendent of Police – It is duty and responsibility of trial courts to allow proceedings to be conducted in camera – Directions issued. (Paras 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 35)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge dated 6th January 2022 at Gwalior Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, dismissing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
Findings of Court:
The legislature has, at places, moulded criminal procedure to enable victims of sexual crimes to seek justice. This has been done in recognition of the gravity of sexual crimes and the need to handle such cases in an appropriately sensitive manner. For instance, Section 327 Cr.P.C. provides for in camera trials to be conducted with respect to offences punishable under Sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C or 376D of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points regarding sexual harassment cases and police inaction are as follows:
Police Responsibility and Sensitivity: Police officers are mandated to act in a fair, impartial, and law-abiding manner when handling complaints, especially in cases of sexual harassment. They are typically the first point of contact for victims and must facilitate the smooth registration of FIRs, treating complainants with sensitivity and respect for their mental state (!) (!) .
Obligation to Register FIR: When a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, police officers are legally bound to register an FIR without discretion. Declining to do so or delaying registration can be considered unlawful. The law emphasizes that the decision to register an FIR should be based solely on whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, not on the credibility or credibility of the complaint (!) (!) .
Challenges Faced by Victims: Victims of sexual harassment often face societal stigma, familial disapproval, and intimidation, which can discourage them from reporting offences. Police must be aware of these challenges and avoid creating additional obstacles that could deter victims from coming forward (!) .
Police Investigation and Judicial Oversight: Magistrates have wide powers under relevant laws to direct police investigations or proceed with cases as complaint cases. These powers include ordering investigations, monitoring police conduct, and ensuring that investigations are conducted properly, especially when there is prima facie evidence of a cognizable offence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Discretion of Magistrates: While the law grants discretion to magistrates under certain provisions, this discretion must be exercised judiciously and based on judicial reasoning. The magistrate’s role includes ensuring that proper investigations are conducted, particularly when documentary or physical evidence is in possession of the accused or third parties and is crucial for establishing the case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Importance of Investigation in Sexual Harassment Cases: Given the trauma and societal stigma faced by victims, courts should encourage police investigation rather than dismiss complaints prematurely. Investigations should be supervised by qualified officers, preferably women officers of appropriate rank, to ensure sensitivity and thoroughness (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Judicial Sensitivity and Fairness: Courts have a duty to handle cases of sexual harassment and assault with sensitivity, ensuring that victims are not further traumatized by the judicial process. Proceedings should be conducted in camera where appropriate, and cross-examination should be respectful to protect the dignity of the complainant (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Role of Courts in Ensuring Justice: Courts must be vigilant to prevent any bias or dismissiveness that could undermine the confidence of victims in the justice system. They should facilitate a process that is accessible, sensitive, and fair, especially in cases involving sexual crimes (!) (!) .
These points highlight the importance of law enforcement’s proactive and sensitive approach in handling sexual harassment complaints, the broad powers of judicial authorities to ensure proper investigation, and the necessity of a fair and empathetic judicial process for victims.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge dated 6 January 2022 at the Gwalior Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, dismissing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 1[“CrPC”]
3. The appellant is working as a yoga instructor at Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education, Gwalior.2[“Institute”] The second respondent was, at the material time, the Vice-Chancellor of the Institute. The appellant alleges that in March 2019, the second respondent touched her inappropriately at the Institute, upon which she disengaged herself and shouted at him. On 14 October 2019, she lodged a complaint at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior. Apprehending that the police had not taken any action, she furnished a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, City Centre, Gwalior on 15 October 2019. Finding that no action had been taken on her complaint, the appellant submitted another complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 18 February 2020 and to both the Superintendent as well as at the PS Gole Ka Mandir again on 24 February 2020. Eventually, the appellant moved the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 3[“JMFC”] Gwalior under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. On 26 February 2020, the JMFC directed the police to file a status report. It appears that the proceedings before the JMFC were delayed due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.
4. In the meantime, the appellant moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the grievance that no inquiry was being conducted into her allegations, which were to be enquired into under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Protection and Redressal) Act 2013.
5. An Internal Complaints Committee4[“ICC”] was constituted on 29 May 2020, with the approval of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. The report of the ICC dated 21 September 2020 found that the allegations which were levelled against the second respondent stood established. A dissenting note was submitted by one of the five members of the ICC. The second respondent has, this Court is informed, lodged an appeal against the findings of the ICC.
6. On 11 November 2020, the then Vice-Chancellor of the Institute addressed a communication to the second respondent stating that the DVRs containing an audio video recording for the months of August and September 2019 of the CCTV cameras installed in the chamber of the Vice-Chancellor had been handed over to him in a sealed packet, according to the then in-charge Registrar, in terms of the oral direction of the second respondent. The second respondent was directed to make available the sealed packet containing the DVRs of the audio-video recording for the months of August and September 2019.
7. On 21 December 2020, the JMFC directed that a status report be sought from the concerned Police Station and that a letter be issued to the Station In-charge for that purpose. On 8 July 2021, a status report was filed by the officer in-charge, Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior before the JMFC, noting that during the course of the investigation, the statements of the complainant and the accused persons were recorded “wherein from the entire investigation, departmental proceedings was conducted against the complainant...due to departmental deficiencies and the occurrence of any offence was not found”.
8. On 23 July 2021, a communication was addressed by the in-charge Vice-Chancellor to the second respondent once again reiterating the demand for the DVRs of the CCTV cameras placed in his office, which were stated to have been handed over to him by the in-charge Registrar.
9. On 16 August 2021, the station in-charge of the Police Station informed the JMFC that the investigation in the matter had not been completed and that time should be granted for submitting a further status report. A reminder was addressed by the JMFC t
(1) Sexual harassment at workplace – Police must be cognizant of fact that they are usually first point of contact for a victim of a crime or a complainant – They must abide by law and enable smooth ....
The Magistrate must judiciously exercise discretion in registering FIRs under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., ensuring that mechanical refusals are avoided when cognizable offences are disclosed.
(1) While registration of FIR is mandatory, arrest of accused on registration of FIR is not.(2) Once Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 190 of Code, he cannot ask for investigation by Poli....
distinction between the investigation by the police officer under Section 156(3) and under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. is that the former is at the pre-cognizance stage and the latter is at post cognizanc....
Direction for Police Investigation – Option to direct registration of case and its investigation by police should be exercised where some “investigation” is required, which is of a nature that is not....
Receipt of the report Magistrate could either close the proceedings on the pretext that FIR vis-à-vis allegations contained in the complaint already stands registered or she could order for registrat....
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 175(3) of the BNSS to decide whether to register an FIR based on the application, assessing whether a cognizable offense is made out.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
