Gauhati High Court rejects quashing plea and anticipatory bail plea of Congress' Srinivas BV in outraging modesty case

The Gauhati High Court on Thursday rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Youth Congress President Srinivas BV and also refused to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him for allegedly outraging modesty of a former Congress worker [Srinivas BV vs State of Assam]. .Single-judge Justice Ajit Borthakur noted that as per the victim's allegation, Srinivas heckled the victim on February 25 at a hotel in Raipur during the Congress party's plenary session.He used slang words against her saying that he would ruin her career in the party if she complained against him before the high office bearers of the Congress party."As per the victim’s allegation, besides various humiliating verbatim the petitioner uttered the words 'ei lerki.... aaye ye tum kiya likhte rehte ho...ye sab tum kiya pitaa rehta hei, vodka pitaa ho ya taakila pitaa rehte ho...(Hey girl, what are your always writing... what you keep drinking...vodka or tequila)," the Court noted.These utterances, as a whole, prima facie constitute the offences which apparently satisfy the ingredients of the penal provisions of Sections 352 (assault or criminal force), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 354A (1)(iv) (sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code, the Court held.It further noted that the alleged harassment by making sexist comments using slang words persistently and threatening the victim not to report his misdemeanour to the high office bearers of their party, would amount to offence of criminal intimidation as alleged in the FIR. .The bench was seized of a plea filed by Srinivas seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him on a complaint lodged by his former colleague and the ex-president of Assam Youth Congress. In her complaint, the woman has alleged that Srinivas persistently harassed her mentally by way of sexist remarks and slang words and also threatened her with dire consequences, if she disclosed the same before the high office bearers of the Congress Party. She also alleged that during the plenary session of the Congress Party held at Mayfair Hotel in Raipur on March 25, she was heckled at the entrance of the hotel by Srinivas who allegedly held her arms and also threatened her by using slang words. She also alleged that despite informing the high office bearers of the Congress Party about his behaviour, no action was taken.However, Srinivas told the bench that the FIR was filed against him to settle political scores. He sought interim relief that is to stay the notices issued by the Dispur Police, asking him to personally appear before the officers investigating the complaint. .In its order, the bench refused to accept the contention that the victim filed the FIR to settle her personal as well as political scores. "There is no indication in the case diary that the FIR is politically motivated and based on some false and concocted story. The nature of offences disclosed in the FIR are crime against the society being basically pertaining to outraging of the modesty of woman. Therefore, at the present stage of investigation, this Court cannot scrutinize the correctness or veracity of those allegations," the bench underlined. As far as the contention that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and that defamation proceedings have been initiated by Youth Congress against the victim, the judge said it was an internal issue of the political party and was not part of the investigation. With these observations, the bench dismissed the plea to quash the FIR. In a separate order, the bench also dismissed his anticipatory bail plea..Court comes down on Senior Counsel.In its 22-page judgment, the Court also took strong objection to the submissions made by Senior Advocate KN Choudhury, who had during the arguments, submitted that judges, who are on the verge of retirement, it is noticed, always pass orders in favour of the Government. Choudhury had referred to former Union Minister Arun Jaitley, who had made this statement in the parliament. Choudhury contended that therefore, a 'cooling off period' after a judge's retirement is advisable. He told the court that this was in the context that the bench did not grant even interim protection to Srinivas on the first day of the hearing and therefore, argued that this (no interim relief) should now be made as a rule for all such petitions.The judge noted that Choudhury advanced his submission at length on the grounds pleaded by the petitioner at the height of his voice creating an unwarranted and unruly situation, breaking the everyday calm and quiet congenial court environment.Notably, Justice Borthakur is slated to demit office on November 30, this year. Justice Borthakur said that he exercised judicial restraint keeping in mind the glorious past of 75 years of existence of the esteemed High Court and also because the contentions were irrelevant in the context of the instant petition."It may pertinently be pointed out that a Judge performs his duties with absolute fairness based on record and relevant laws only applicable to the facts and circumstances in each case, without fear or favour or affection or ill-will," Justice Borthakur underscored, while hoping that good conscience shall prevail upon Choudhury, who is widely assumed to be a legal acumen. The Court, however, said it was "unfortunately compelled" to record its displeasure and reserved the right for reference in future in the event of recurrence of such avoidable embarrassing situation in the Court. It ordered forwarding of the judgment copy to the Registrar General of the High Court for favour of placing before the Chief Justice for information and to the Registrar (Vigilance) for record..Senior Advocate KN Choudhury appeared for Srinivas BV.Advocate General D Saikia along with Public Prosecutor M. Phukan represented the State. Senior Advocate P Bora represented the victim..[Read Judgment]