Traditional families struggle to report sexual offences: Bombay High Court

Families in traditional societies, like in India, may find it difficult to report sexual offences, the Bombay High Court observed recently..Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale made the observation while refusing to quash a sexual assault case filed against a Mumbai resident accused of groping his domestic worker.The Court remarked that cases involving allegations of sexual offences against women and similar cases ought not to be thrown out on the sole ground of there being an unexplained delay, unless the delay is attributed to malicious intent or a vendetta. .Justice Bhonsale observed that there could be various reasons for the delays in reporting such cases, including the social stigma attached to the victims of such offences.“In offences like sexual offences or offences under section 498A (marital cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, delay will have to be construed and considered in the facts and circumstances in which the offence takes place. In a traditional society like ours, unfortunately many families find it exceedingly and extremely difficult to initiate even a genuine criminal prosecution when such nature of offences are involved,” the Court observed..The Court made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by one Nandakumar Panicker to quash a criminal case filed against him under Section 354 (outraging a woman’s modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Panicker had argued there was a 21‑day delay in lodging the FIR which implied the complaint was an afterthought. He relied on CCTV footage of the building, and pointed to the investigating officer’s failure to record the woman’s statement. However, Justice Bhonsale held these were defences to be tested at trial, not grounds for quashing the case at the threshold..According to the FIR, Panicker hired the complainant in February 2019 to cook twice a day at a salary of ₹5,000 a month. She joined on March 1, 2019. The complaint stated that on March 10, 2019, Panicker allegedly molested her, leading her to run out of the flat.She initially kept quiet, fearing her husband would be upset, but disclosed the incident to him later that day. A complaint was lodged on April 2, 2019, resulting in a chargesheet. .Panicker claimed he had terminated the woman’s services over poor cooking after which she purportedly threatened with false allegations and extortionate salary demands. He also relied on a prior letter to the police narrating his version and a purported settlement meeting at the police station where he paid her ₹5,000 on humanitarian grounds.The Court, however, found the FIR’s narration of events seemed to be made out prima facie case and refused to quash the same. .Advocates Haresh Jagtiani, Nikhil Ghate, and Pushpvijay Kanoji, briefed by Haresh Jagtiani and Associates, appeared for Panicker.Additional public prosecutor YM Nakhwa appeared for the State. Advocates Dilip Shukla and Priya Pandey appeared for the complainant. .[Read order]