Object of Vishaka guidelines defeated if complainant is coerced to withdraw complaint: Bombay High Court

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court today refused to accept a compromise affidavit filed by the complainant in a case registered against a man accused of assaulting her (Pradeep Daud v. State of Maharashtra)..The Court was of the view that the complainant may have been compelled to file the affidavit seeking compromise in the matter..The order was passed in a plea filed by one Pradeep Daud, who sought quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him for offences under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force on woman with intention to outraging her modesty) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code..The Bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and BU Debadwar stated that the object of the Vishaka Committee recommendations - passed in the wake of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Vishaka case - would be defeated if female employees are coerced to withdraw their complaints..The involvement of lady employees has to be encouraged in order to bring them in the main stream along with their male counterparts and become a source of earning for the family. This object would be defeated if lady employees, who have complained against male employees, are coerced to withdraw their complaints so as to “sweep the dirt below the carpet”..The Court was informed that the complainant, a school teacher, was agreeable to settle the dispute and she had entered a compromise undertaking.The undertaking stated that she had filed the complaint due to a misunderstanding which was cleared and she did not desire to prosecute her complaint. .In her affidavit in reply to the plea for quashing, she submitted the complaint was filed in some confusion. The academic atmosphere in the school and other co-teachers is spoilt since she has filed FIR, the reply stated..Allegedly, the applicant had been stalking the complainant and chasing her in the presence of other male and female co-teachers. One day the applicant offered the complainant a film ticket, she screamed at him in anger in front of co-teachers which was followed by him holding her hand indicating that he will drag her to the theatre; and this led to the filing of the FIR..The Court noted that Advocate SP Koli for the complainant was reading her compromise affidavit with slight discomfort..From a portion of her affidavit the Court noted that she may have been compelled to file an affidavit and tender a compromise undertaking since her affidavit says "she assures that in future she will not file a criminal complaint against the applicant.".The affidavit speaks volume about the pressure possible exerted on her, either by the applicant or the educational institution, the Court noted..The Court indicated they would have rather appreciated if the educational institution would have taken recourse to the Vishaka Committee recommendations and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act to initiate disciplinary action against him..The Court found it "unconscionable to accept such compromise" as it would seem against the interest of justice. .Commenting on the merits of the case, the Court stated that in matters for quashing of FIR, the accused approaches the Court on the ground that the FIR on the face of it, does not disclose ingredients that would consitute a cognizable offence. .Noting that the complainant had spelt out the offending acts of the applicant, and the offending acts of the applicant and the chargesheet also contains the same allegations, the Court dismissed the petition..[Read judgment here]