Sets back the cause of women empowerment: Delhi High Court on false invocation of sexual harassment laws

The Delhi High Court recently expressed its anguish at the way cases of sexual harassment are registered “at the drop of a hat”, stating that this effectively hampers the cause of woman empowerment [Dr Karunakar Patra v State and Ors]..Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the filing of such cass trivialises a serious offence and casts a doubt on the veracity of allegations filed by every other victim. “This Court expresses its anguish at how provisions such as Sections 354A/506 IPC are falsely invoked at the drop of a hat to register one’s displeasure at the conduct of another individual. This merely trivialises the offence of sexual harassment and casts a doubt on the veracity of the allegations filed by every other victim who has in reality faced sexual harassment, thereby setting back the cause of women empowerment,” the single-judge said..The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a Delhi University professor seeking the quashing of a first information report (FIR) registered by his neighbour under Sections 354A (punishment for sexual harassment) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.It was argued that while the petitioner and his family were out of the city, their neighbour demolished a cemented water tank that had been constructed for his flat at the rooftop. The neighbours even constructed a room and a toilet, and broke the pipe that was used to supply water to the petitioner's flat.Though the petitioner made several representations to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Delhi Police to act on the illegal construction, no action was taken against them, allegedly because the daughter-in-law of their neighbour was a Constable with the Delhi Police.The Court was told that in February 2021, in response to a written complaint by the petitioner and his wife, the police called them to the station and asked them to settle the matter. On a refusal to do the same, the neighbours then registered the FIR against the petitioner and his wife. It was alleged that the police asked them to pay ₹5 lakh as bribe to settle the matter..The Bench observed that the content of the FIR was sketchy in nature, and it was devoid of any specifics regarding the offences which were alleged to have been committed.“While this Court is cognizant of the fact that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details, however, in the instant case, a bare reading of the impugned FIR No.89/2021 prima facie indicates that the FIR arises out of bald allegations and contradictory statements.”It added that a comprehensive reading of the matter revealed that the FIR was merely a counterblast and solely registered to arm-twist the petitioner and his wife into withdrawing the complaints that had been filed against the neighbours.“A reading of the Status Report also does not reveal anything about the offences being referred to in the impugned FIR. The Status Report states that the Petitioner and his wife were habitual complainants and have filed multiple complaints against the construction that would take place in the neighbourhood, and therefore, it is evident that the instant FIR was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Petitioner, and with a view to spite him and his wife due to a private and personal grudge.”.The Court therefore quashed the FIR..Advocate Kumar Piyush Pushkar appeared for the petitioner. Advocates Chirag Khurana, Ashish Aggarwal and Madhusudhan Bhayana appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.