Category: Cases

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was accused of committing rape on the de facto complainant by promising marriage between 2014 and
2019. The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner subjected her to rape during this period. The
petitioner and the complainant were in a consensual relationship, with the alleged incidents of rape supposedly
occurring between May 30, 2014, and April 20, 2019. However, the FIR was filed only in 2019, raising concerns
about the credibility of the complaint, especially considering that there had been no contact between the
parties for over three years before the complaint was made.

Contention of the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that the allegations of rape were baseless. He argued that the sexual relations between
him and the de facto complainant were consensual, and that there was no coercion involved. He pointed out the
significant delay in filing the FIR (five years after the alleged incident) and noted that there had been no
contact between the petitioner and the complainant for over three years. Moreover, the petitioner referred to
the fact that the complainant had previously filed a complaint with the Women Cell in 2016 but had withdrawn it
after receiving assurances from him regarding marriage. He claimed that this behaviour indicated that the
complainant’s allegations were motivated by ulterior motives, possibly related to personal grudges or attempts
to exert pressure for illegal demands.

Contention of the Respondent

The respondent (the de facto complainant) maintained that she had been subjected to rape by the petitioner, who
had promised to marry her. She claimed that the sexual relations were non-consensual, and that the petitioner
had taken advantage of her trust. The respondent pointed out that the petitioner’s actions caused her
significant emotional and psychological harm, and the failure to file the FIR earlier was attributed to her
belief that the petitioner would eventually marry her, as assured by him on several occasions. She further
argued that the delay in filing the complaint should not be considered as an indication that her allegations
were false.

Court’s Observation

The Kerala High Court noted a significant shift in how society perceives sexual assault allegations, particularly
in the context of Indian society. The Court observed that the old belief—that women would not make false
allegations of sexual assault due to societal pressures—no longer held universally true. The Court stated,
“In cases where sexual assault has been alleged, the said concept has been carried for the past so many
years, on the premise that, in Indian society, any girl would not make any allegation of sexual assault or
any other mode of misconduct against a person… However, in recent years, this concept seems to be diluted…
so as to settle a score and also to compel the persons against whom allegations are made to heed the illegal
demands of the complainants.”

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010),
noting that traditionally, girls in India were reluctant to admit incidents of sexual assault because they
feared social ostracism. However, the Court pointed out that these concerns should not lead to blind acceptance
of allegations without scrutinizing the facts of each case individually. It observed that in the present case,
the delay in filing the FIR, coupled with the lack of contact between the parties for three years, raised doubts
about the credibility of the complaint.

Court’s Decision

The Court ultimately quashed all the proceedings against the petitioner, citing a lack of substantive evidence to
support the allegations of rape. The Court reasoned that the relationship between the petitioner and the de
facto complainant was consensual, and the overt acts alleged in the complaint could not be classified as rape.
The delay in filing the complaint, combined with the fact that the complainant had not pursued earlier
complaints, further supported the Court’s conclusion that the allegations lacked merit. The Court emphasized
that the consent of the complainant had not been vitiated by any misconception of facts and that the
relationship was purely consensual in nature.

The Court also took into account the complainant’s affidavit, which stated that she had no objection to quashing
the proceedings against the petitioner. As a result, the Court allowed the petition for quashing and dismissed
the criminal proceedings, stating, “Therefore, the relationship between the defacto complainant and
petitioner was purely consensual in nature… no materials made out in this matter to attract the offence
punishable under Section 376 of IPC.” The proceedings in the Sessions Court, arising from the case,
were accordingly quashed.

Facts of the case

The Petitioner during his service as a Deputy Director in the District Tourism Office faced an enquiry which was
initiated against him by Internal Committee (IC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 based on a complaint from a female employee. The allegation against the
Petitioner is that he harassed the Complainant, a female co-worker in various ways. A Show Cause Notice was
issued to the Petitioner by which a punishment of lowering him as the junior most in the category of Tourist
Information Officer was tentatively proposed.

The Petitioner submitted a reply raising serious objection against the enquiry report and the proposed
consequential actions. The Petitioner then approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal for setting aside the
report and further proceedings. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal refused to interfere with the proceedings
initiated against the Petitioner stating that the objection raised by the Petitioner is premature and he could
avail of his remedies when final orders are issued.

This Kerala Administrative Tribunal Order has been challenged before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court through
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The contention of the Petitioner is that the IC is bound to enquire into the complaint in accordance with
the provisions of the service rules applicable, yet the Petitioner was denied participation in the enquiry, and
he was not given an opportunity to cross examine the Complainant. It was further contended by the Petitioner
that the enquiry should have adhered to service rules applicable to him under Kerala Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The Petitioner further contended that the procedure followed by the
IC violates the second provisio to Section 11 of the POSH Act. The Petitioner placed reliance on Sibu L.S. v.
Air India Ltd., New Delhi and Other.

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that the procedure to be followed in such enquiry must be the procedure prescribed under the
Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or such other departmental rules applicable to
the employee.

However, before allowing the delinquent to cross-examine the victim of sexual harassment, the committee must
ensure her capability to depose before them fearlessly and without intimidation. The Court also observed that
the mere fact that the Petitioner was not permitted to verbally cross examine the victim, cannot be said that
the enquiry is vitiated. The court pointed out that a delinquent should not be permitted to challenge the
disciplinary proceedings at an interim stage as that would cause delay to reach finality and thereby the
delinquent can challenge the final outcome.

Court Decision

The disciplinary authority should ensure that the IC proceed with enquiry in the manner provided in the Kerala
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and the Petitioner is given an opportunity to
discredit the complaint or to adduce evidence before the Committee. The Court directed that the Respondent’s
complete the entire process at the earliest within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this
judgment.

During hearing of this Petition, the court observed that there is no mechanism to anonymise the Complainant who
alleges that she faced sexual harassment or other atrocities as envisaged by the POSH Act. The Court emphasized
that right to privacy is recognised as one of the most important aspects of the fundamental rights of a person
and therefore a Complainant who raises a complaint is entitled to ensure that her whereabouts are anonymised
from the public domain. The Court referenced a decision of the Bombay High Court in P v. A and Ors. and
suggested to consider those guidelines with necessary variations.

Facts of the case

The Complaint of sexual harassment arose out of allegations against the Petitioner which included a remark about
female employee’s hair “you must be using JCB to manage your hair” and the Petitioner also sang a song related
to her hair. In the second incident an inappropriate comment was passed by the Petitioner on male colleague’s
private parts in a common forum where other female employees were present.

The Complainant raised a complaint to Internal Committee for the misconduct stating that she has faced sexual
harassment. The Internal Committee held the Petitioner guilty for such misconduct. The Petitioner challenged the
recommendations of the Internal Committee before the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court, Pune upheld the
decision of the Internal Committee.

The Petitioner challenged judgment and order passed by Member Industrial Court, Pune dismissing appeal filed
under provisions of Section 18 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Rules, 2013 (POSH Act). The Petitioner had challenged the report passed by the Internal
Complaints Committee of Respondent No. 2-Employer.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that considering the nature of comment allegedly made by the Petitioner towards the
complainant it becomes difficult to believe that the same was made with an intent of causing any sexual
harassment to the complainant. The Complainant herself never perceived the comment as sexual harassment when the
comment was made. The comment was made on 11 June 2022. However, the WhatsApp conversation between the
Petitioner and the complainant post 11 June 2022 would indicate that the Petitioner was in fact motivating the
complainant regarding performance of her work and the complainant had expressed gratitude towards the efforts of
the Petitioner. Therefore, it becomes difficult to hold that the Petitioner has committed any act of sexual
harassment.

While addressing the second incident, the Court pointed out that the Complainant was not even present when
personal remarks were made against male colleague in front of female employees. Therefore, it becomes difficult
to believe that the conduct described would cause any sexual harassment to the Complainant

Thus, it was pointed out that even if the allegations are taken to be proved, concrete inference of cause of
sexual harassment to the complainant cannot be drawn.

Court’s decision

The Court held that the findings recorded by the Industrial Court are clearly perverse. The Industrial Court has
failed to take into consideration the exact nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner.
It has completely ignored the fact that even if the allegations are taken as proved, no case of sexual
harassment of the complainant was made out in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

Therefore, judgment and order dated 1 July 2024 passed by the Member Industrial Court, Pune  as well as the
report of the IC dated 30 September 2022 were set aside by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

Facts of the Case

The case involves a 26-year-old man accused of raping a 23-year-old postgraduate college student. According to
the victim’s statement, she met the accused at a bar in Delhi where she was socializing with three of her female
friends. After consuming alcohol, she became heavily intoxicated. The accused repeatedly insisted that she
accompany him to his residence, ostensibly so that she could rest. Trusting him due to her condition, the victim
agreed. However, instead of taking her to his home in Noida as promised, he took her to a relative’s apartment
in Gurgaon where, she alleged, he raped her twice. An FIR was lodged in May 2024, and the accused was arrested
in September 2024. The bail application was filed after he had spent several months in judicial custody.

Contentions of the Petitioner (Accused)

The accused, through his counsel, argued that even if all the allegations in the FIR were accepted at face value,
the circumstances point more towards a consensual relationship rather than a non-consensual act of rape. It was
submitted that the victim voluntarily accompanied the accused late at night, under the influence of alcohol, and
hence, the issue was one of consent and not of coercion or force. Additionally, the petitioner emphasized that
he had no prior criminal record and had already been incarcerated since December 2024. He undertook not to
misuse the liberty of bail and assured full cooperation with the trial proceedings.

Contentions of the Respondent (State/Opposition)

The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, opposed the bail plea citing the serious nature of
the offense and the statements made in the FIR. However, the prosecution did not challenge the factual elements
raised by the petitioner regarding the circumstances surrounding the incident. The victim’s statement and the
medical evidence, while pointing to a torn hymen, did not conclusively affirm sexual assault, and no expert
medical opinion affirming rape was provided.

Court’s Observations

Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court made several notable observations while allowing the bail
plea. The court held:

“Even if the allegation of the victim is accepted as true, then it can also be concluded that she herself
invited trouble and was also responsible for the same.”

The Court underscored the victim’s academic standing, noting that as a postgraduate student, she should have
understood the “morality and significance of her act.” The judgment seemed to suggest that her voluntary
intoxication and decision to accompany the accused created an ambiguous context that raised doubt about the
charge of rape. Furthermore, while the medical report indicated a torn hymen, the doctor offered no definitive
opinion on whether sexual assault had occurred.

Court’s Order

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view
that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.”

This conditional bail, particularly the requirement to marry the complainant, has stirred widespread concern.

Backlash and Public Reaction

The ruling has triggered significant backlash from civil society, legal experts, and women’s rights
organizations, who argue that it reinforces patriarchal notions of victimhood and dilutes the seriousness of
sexual assault allegations. Critics have especially condemned the court’s statement that the victim “invited
trouble,” terming it a classic case of victim-blaming.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, a constable in Rajasthan, challenged the charge-sheet issued against him on 12th June 2024 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The charge-sheet accused him of negligence in conducting an enquiry related to a complaint. The petitioner contended that a preliminary enquiry conducted previously did not implicate him and sought the quashing of the charge-sheet on the grounds that the allegations were baseless.

Court’s Observation:

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the validity of the charge-sheet and the allegations of negligence could only be determined after the petitioner submits his defense and presents adequate evidence before the Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority. The court emphasized that it cannot intervene in the charge-sheet process at this early stage, as doing so would interfere with the functioning of the disciplinary proceedings.

“On the question, whether there was negligence on the part of the petitioner or not, the petitioner can put his defence by way of filing his reply and producing adequate evidence in support of his defence. In any case, this Court cannot act as an Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations.”

Court’s Ruling:

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Orissa v Sangram Keshari Misra, the court ruled that charge-sheets cannot be quashed prematurely, especially on the grounds of erroneous charges. It noted that the authority to assess the correctness of the charge lies with the disciplinary authority, not the court. The court pointed out that disciplinary action could be questioned at the conclusion of the enquiry if it was determined that the allegations were unjustified.

The court further stressed that a writ petition against a charge-sheet is not appropriate unless it is shown that the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent authority. It dismissed the petition with a direction to the petitioner to raise his defense during the ongoin disciplinary proceedings.

Court’s Final Decision:

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to raise his defense before the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority and ensuring the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings. The court also dismissed any pending applications related to the case.