Punjab-Haryana High Court
Alphi Chugh vs State Of Rajasthan And Others on 19 September, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-29141 of 2012 (O&M) -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-29141 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: September 19, 2012.
Alphi Chugh
... Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana
... Respondent
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Shri Rupesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):
Petitioner was working as an Assistant Manager (Technical Sales) with Gnome Business Solution ( hereinafter to be referred in short as GBS) and was also assigned additional task of imparting training to new recruits by the management of the company. Now petitioner is practicing advocate in various courts in Delhi. He has been booked for alleged sexual harassment of newly recruited female trainees, for outraging their modesty, vide FIR No.173 dated 30.11.2011, (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Crl. Misc. No. M-29141 of 2012 (O&M) -: 2 :- Station Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, under Sections 354, 509 IPC. The instant petition is for quashing of the FIR in question.
The brief allegations, as narrated in the FIR, are to the effect that the petitioner who was a Manager at Gnome Business Solution, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon and was also imparting training to the new recruits, had talked with four female complainants in an indecent manner and rudely and asked them that if they have to clear the training and to have promotion, then they will have to compromise the situation. It is also alleged in the FIR that many times he used to touch the complainants in a wrongful manner. There is further allegation in the complaint against the petitioner that he had made advances that he had got the keys of a room and they could go there and enjoy. It is further alleged in the FIR that the petitioner had discussed about the size of his private part and had used words which are not appropriate to be reproduced here, as are mentioned in the FIR. He had also been discussing about the physical structure and appearance of the female trainees and had threatened them that he will throw them out if they talked to anyone in this regard. The complainants are out of employment within 13 days of joining job. It is also mentioned in the complaint that earlier they could not react against his indecent behaviour because they were feeling tense and shy.
It is pertinent to mention here that the complainants (names have been withheld) are female trainees from various parts of the country and are young girls who had joined the service on 14.11.2011 and had to leave unceremoniously on 26.11.2011, which included the training period. Crl. Misc. No. M-29141 of 2012 (O&M) -: 3 :- They were on training for just a week commencing from 14.11.2011 to 21.11.2011 only, out of which five days were for training and thereafter, there was an On-Job Training.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention and is an abuse of process of law and relies upon N.M. Murthi v. State 1996 RCR (Crl.) 393 to contend that the FIR can be quashed at the threshold if the allegations are either absurd or inherently improbable. He has referred to para 18 of the said judgment wherein it has been mentioned that if the proceedings are maliciously instituted with ulterior motive to wreak vengeance, the FIR can be quashed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment in Kuldeep Raj Mahajan v. Hukam Chand, 2008(1) RCR (Crl.) 370 passed by this Court wherein the complaint has been quashed by holding that prosecution of the petitioner therein is mala fide and abuse of the process of law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the celebrated judgment in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383 and has made reference to observation No.(7) of the judgment to contend that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spit him due to private and personal grudge, the complaint can be quashed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the Crl. Misc. No. M-29141 of 2012 (O&M) -: 4 :- complainant had moved three complaints against false accusation imputed to him on 26.11.2011, 28.11.2011 and 30.11.2011. The FIR is the improved version of the complaints earlier lodged by the complainants. Their work and conduct was not found satisfactory and for that reason, their services were terminated.
I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the judgments cited before this Court. In this case, the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. The complainants were subordinate to the petitioner and were undergoing training under him. Instead of guiding them as a good trainer, the petitioner started indulging in indecent acts which are not expected from a trainer, who is just like a guardian of the new recruits. In the real sense, the complainants are his students and towards them, the teacher/trainer is required to have some sense of responsibility. They should have been looked upon like his own children, brothers and sisters. The reading of the FIR reveals that they were shy and could not narrate the incident in the way it happened. An FIR is not an encyclopedia and be all and end all of the things. The things may come up in the evidence or the statements which are to be recorded during investigation. Sexual harassment at work places is an extension of violence in everyday life and is discriminatory, exploitative and is thriving in atmosphere of threat, terror and reprisal.
It would be appropriate to mention about two broad types of sexual harassment: quid pro quo harassment and hostile environment. Quid pro quo, or this for that, involves the victim being promised a benefit in Crl. Misc. No. M-29141 of 2012 (O&M) -: 5 :- exchange for sexual favours, including requests for dates. Quid pro quo can only be committed by someone who has the power to make employment decisions. When quid pro quo occurs, the victim's submission to or rejection of the conduct is used as a basis for employment decisions. Hostile environment sexual harassment occurs when the conduct of the harasser creates a hostile, offensive or intimidating environment. Factors which may determine a hostile environment include: the verbal and/or physical nature of the conduct, frequency of the conduct, hostility and offensiveness of the conduct, the working relationship to the harasser (trainer or supervisor), perpetuation of the conduct by others, if there is more than one victim. Behaviours that may contribute to a hostile environment include:
discussing sexual activities, touching unnecessarily, commenting on physical attributes, displaying sexually suggestive pictures, using demeaning or inappropriate terms, such as "Babe" telling sexual jokes and innuendo, and using indecent gestures. Sexual favouritism may take the form of implicit quid pro quo harassment and/or hostile work environment harassment. Sexual favouritism occurs when one or more individuals are given preferential treatment by a person in a dominant or power role. The people who are not given the preferential treatment can claim sexual favouritism.
The complainants are victims of quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment at the hands of petitioner for unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. The conduct of the petitioner explicitly or implicitly Crl. Misc. No. M-29141 of 2012 (O&M) -: 6 :- affected complainant's employment and created an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. The complainants were traumatised. Passing in training has essential served as weapon in the hands of petitioner of such a heinous crime against female young trainees.
Perusal of the record of petition reveals that the petitioner himself has filed a complaint against one of the complainants wherein there is mention of some text message being transmitted from his mobile phone to that of a complainant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the said mobile phone does not belong to him but it is that of his brother , petitioner is using the same.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not illustrate as to in which manner the instant case is an abuse of the process of law. In this case, the petitioner could not cite any previous enmity, ill-will or spite which could brand the instant FIR as the one maliciously instituted. In the own words of the petitioner, he was just an employee, like the complainants, therefore, he could not exercise authority over the complainants, does suggest that there was no good reason with the complainants to falsely implicate him in order to hoodwink him or to make him toe their lines. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the present FIR is abuse of process of law, gets demolished, more so when he is not a part of the management so as to exercise influence upon the complainants. In the facts of this case judgments cited are not applicable.
The other contention of the petitioner, that, the FIR does not disclose the entire incident and belie the alleged evidence put forth by him, Crl. Misc. No. M-29141 of 2012 (O&M) -: 7 :- is also untenable and unsustainable. In criminal jurisprudence, the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no application, and one false assertion does not make the entire assertion false. In criminal law, what is essential is that the version as a whole should inspire confidence. In the present case, not one, but four complainants have come forward against the indecent conduct of the petitioner and have candidly spoken against him in a concerted manner. The complainants may be wrong on one aspect but at this stage, what the court has to see is as to whether the version propounded by them inspires confidence.
Keeping in view the fact that there is a text message also on mobile No.9650815111 from mobile No.7838835208, in such circumstances, the investigation is necessary. This is a sensitive issue because the court cannot be oblivious of the facts in such cases, therefore, no indulgence is called for.
Furthermore, power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and in the rarest of rare cases. This power is not to be used to stifle legitimate prosecution. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. In these proceedings, the High Court does not take upon itself the task of appreciating the evidence on record or to record an independent finding as regards delay etc. In view of the above discussion, no case for quashing of the impugned FIR is made out. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed in limine.Crl. Misc. No. M-29141 of 2012 (O&M) -: 8 :-
Court on its own Motion:
Before parting with the judgment, it would be appropriate to mention here that the conduct of the management of GBS is also required to be investigated where the petitioner and complainants were working. Whether they are having any mechanism by which they can watch the work places and training rooms by way of CCTV cameras. There is every likelihood in the present day set up that all the rooms of the call centres are generally under surveillance from the centralized room of a company to watch the activities of the persons/employees working in the company.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in a case titled Vishaka and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1977 SC 3011 held as under:
"It shall be the duty of the employer or other responsible persons in work places or other institutions to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide the procedures for the resolution, settlement or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment by taking all steps required." The above judgment makes it obligatory for every employer and other responsible persons to follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to evolve a specific mechanism to combat sexual harassment in the workplaces. Call centres and other institutions are also bound by the same directive.
It is the first and foremost duty and legal responsibility of the employer to provide safe working environment for women free from sexual harassment. GBS company is directed to file an affidavit about the Crl. Misc. No. M-29141 of 2012 (O&M) -: 9 :- mechanism they have adopted to check sexual harassment, what action they had taken after the complaint made by the complainant to police and reasons for termination of the services of complainant and the petitioner, method and modern technology applied for supervision of work places .
Put up on 30.10.2012.
[ Paramjeet Singh ] September 19, 2012. Judge kadyan