Madras High Court says sexual harassment allegations against 'godman' Shiva Sankar Baba serious, but quashes FIR due to procedural omission

The Madras High Court recently quashed a sexual harassment case against self-proclaimed godman Shiva Sankar Baba, after noting that while the incident allegedly occurred between the years 2010 and 2011, the first information report (FIR) was registered only in 2021 and the prosecution failed to file an application before the magistrate seeking condonation of such delay [Siva Shankar v State & Anr]..In a judgement passed on October 17, Justice RN Manjula said that though the allegations made by the woman, a single mother, were serious in nature, and it was probable that the complainant had stayed quiet all these years considering that the accused was a "highly influential figure," the Court could not ignore the fact that the State had failed to file a plea under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for condonation of delay.."Though the allegations made by the second respondent is serious in nature, because of the absence of any petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. to condone the delay filed along with the complainant, the case becomes barred by limitation. In the said circumstances, I feel that the investigation cannot serve any fruitful purpose and for the reasons of technical flaw, the FIR is liable to be quashed," the judgment said. The Court was hearing a plea filed Sankar seeking quashing of FIR against him.As per the state, Sankar ran a school in TN and for years he had been sexually abusing students there. He was arrested in June 2021 after several girl students made allegations of sexual assault and harassment against him. Following such allegations, several former students of the school too, came out with their stories of having been sexually assaulted by Shankar while they were studying in his school. Sankar was booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and several FIRs were registered against him. He was subsequently granted bail in the POCSO cases by the Supreme Court. The complainant in the present case too made her complaint in the wake of the several allegations made by the students. She told the police that she was a single mother, and her son, who was a student in Sankar's school, had been thrown out in 2010 for no apparent reason. When she visited Sankar to get her son re-admitted in the academic session of 2010-11, she was sexually harassed by him but she did not speak up then, as she was afraid..Sankar argued that there was a substantial delay in registering the complaint and on the date of the complaint itself, the case was barred by the statute of limitation.The TN government vehemently opposed the plea, arguing that there was sufficient material against the accused who had been booked under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act.The State further contended that the accused was an influential person and the complainant, whose son used to study in a school run by Sankar, did not come forward with her complaint immediately out of fear..The Court agreed that the complainant could have been afraid and decided to speak up only when others made their complaints against Sankar.However, it said that while there is no bar in registering FIRs in cases of sexual harassment much after the incident actually happened, the State should have filed the 437 CrPC application as soon as the complaint was made. "In the instant case, the petitioner / accused is an influential religious person who projected himself as the star of hope for many people and for whom there were lot of devotees. The serious allegations of beastful attitude of the petitioner have been made recently. There are serious complaints against the petitioner that the children studying in his school were the targets for his sexual exploitations. It is not uncommon when long suppressed illegal acts of any influential person is brought out, many people affected by him will get emboldened and courageous to report about the unlawful acts. The second respondent / de facto complaint has stated in her complaint that she tried to swallow the bitter part of her life as she was helpless at the time when the offence was committed," the Court said. .It further noted that while the State had said it will seek condonation of the delay at the time of filing a chargesheet, the date of filing of the complaint was also material for a petition under 437 of the CrPC. It cited the Supreme Court judgement in Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases that had held the petition to condone the delay should be filed before the magistrate at the time of giving the complaint itself. "Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in Cr. No.2 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed," the Court ordered.Advocate R Vijaya Kumar appeared for the petitioner.Additional Public Prosecutor A Damodaran appeared for the respondents state and the complainant. .[Read Judgement]