Exoneration in POSH Inquiry No Bar to Criminal Trial for Sexual Harassment, Magistrate Can Reject Police Closure Report: Delhi High Court - 2025-09-09

Delhi High Court Upholds Trial in Sexual Harassment Case, Rules Departmental Exoneration Not Binding on Criminal Courts

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the parallel proceedings of departmental inquiries and criminal trials in sexual harassment cases. In a judgment penned by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna , the court held that an accused's exoneration by an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act does not automatically warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated on the same allegations.

The court dismissed a petition filed by Asif Hamid Khan, an Additional Resident Commissioner for the Jammu & Kashmir Government, who sought to quash the summoning order issued against him for offences under Sections 354A (sexual harassment) and 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court underscored that a Magistrate is not bound by a police closure report and can independently apply their mind to the evidence on record to take cognizance of an offence.

Case Background: A Tale of Two Proceedings

The case originated from a complaint filed in December 2014 by Smt. Shruti Bhardwaj, a member of the Kashmir Administrative Services, against her superior, Asif Hamid Khan. She alleged a year-long pattern of sexual harassment, including sexually coloured remarks, inappropriate comments, and demands for sexual favours.

Following her complaint, two separate proceedings were initiated:

• Internal Inquiry: An ICC was constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). In February 2015, the committee submitted a report concluding that the allegations against Khan were "not established."
• Criminal Complaint: The complainant also lodged a police complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR. However, the police filed a closure report in May 2016, citing a lack of evidence. After the complainant filed a protest petition, the court ordered further investigation, which again resulted in a second closure report in April 2017.

Despite the two police closure reports, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) rejected them, finding sufficient material in the complainant's statement and witness testimonies to summon Khan for trial. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), prompting Khan to approach the High Court.

Key Arguments in Court

• Petitioner's Stance (Asif Hamid Khan): Khan's counsel argued that the lower courts erred by ignoring the statutory report of the ICC, which had exonerated him. It was contended that the police had twice found no substance in the allegations and that the criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted due to personal grudges. The petitioner also pointed to cordial text messages exchanged with the complainant as evidence against the harassment claims.

• Respondent's Stance (The Complainant): The complainant argued that the petitioner was an influential officer, which led to the police filing repeated closure reports. Her counsel asserted that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct, operate in different spheres, and have different standards of proof. Therefore, the ICC's findings should have no bearing on the criminal trial.

High Court's Legal Analysis

Justice Krishna's bench meticulously addressed the two primary legal questions raised in the petition.

1. On the Magistrate's Power to Reject a Closure Report: The court affirmed the well-settled legal principle that a Magistrate is not a mere "post-office" for police reports. Citing the Supreme Court's judgments in Bhagwat Singh vs. Commissioner of Police (1985) and Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (2014) , the High Court reiterated that a Magistrate has three options upon receiving a closure report: - Accept the report and drop proceedings. - Disagree with the report, take cognizance of the offence, and issue process. - Direct further investigation.

The judgment stated, "The Magistrate has the jurisdiction to ignore the opinion expressed by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts that have emerged from the investigation."

2. On the Impact of an ICC Report on Criminal Proceedings: The court held that departmental and criminal proceedings serve different purposes and operate under different rules of evidence and standards of proof. The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V. (2014) to draw a clear distinction:

"While criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of a duty that the offender owes to the Society, Departmental Enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service... Therefore, merely because the Petitioner has been exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry, cannot be the sole basis for discharging him in the present FIR."

The court observed that the ICC report concluded the allegations were not established due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, but it did not find the complainant's testimony to be false. The lower court, therefore, was correct in independently ascertaining if a prima facie case was made out from the police investigation records.

Prima Facie Case Established

The High Court noted that the CMM had correctly identified specific allegations from the complainant's statement that squarely fell within the ambit of Sections 354A and 509 IPC. These included comments like "What if someone falls in love with you," "but if I hug you and kiss you," and forcibly holding her hand.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the complainant's account was corroborated by statements of at least four other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who testified that the complainant had confided in them about the harassment. The judgment emphasized that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix can be sufficient for a conviction if it is of sterling quality, and here, the complainant's specific allegations could not be dismissed without a trial.

Final Verdict

Concluding that there was sufficient material to prima facie disclose an offence, the Delhi High Court dismissed Asif Hamid Khan's petition.

"It has to be thus, concluded that there is sufficient material by way of statement of the Complainant and the witnesses as aforementioned, to prima facie disclose an offence under Section 354-A/509 IPC," the court ruled, affirming that the CMM had rightly discarded the closure reports and the ASJ had correctly upheld the summoning order.

This decision reinforces the legal standing of criminal proceedings in sexual harassment cases, ensuring that they can proceed on their own merits, independent of the outcomes of internal departmental inquiries.