IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9258 OF 2016 Between:
Sri. Ashish Kumar, Age: 42 years, Son of Sri. Girish Kumar Agarwal, Residing at No.G16, Richfield Apartments, Marathalli, Bangalore – 560 037. …Petitioner (By Shri. Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel for Shri. Venkatesh S Arbatti, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by The Station House Officer, Byappanahalli Police Station, Halasuru Sub Division, Bengaluru – 560 042.
2. Smt. Asha Hombe Gowda, Wife of Sri. Srinivas, No.26, Akshrashan, Defence Colony, Cauvery Nagara, Hennur Bande, Near Horamavu Agara, Bangalore City – 560 043. …Respondents (By Shri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1; Shri. S.V. Shastri, Advocate for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.22184/2013 on the file of X A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, (Trial Court) on a charge sheet filed by the respondent against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Section 509 of IPC in Cr.No.273/2011 registered by respondent in relation to the petitioner.
This Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R Heard the learned Senior Advocate Sri Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present petition coming on for admission, is considered for final disposal. It is pointed out that the petitioner is facing proceedings for an offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at the instance of one Mrs. Asha Hombegowda, who is said to be an employee of M/s Samsung R and D Institute India, Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., In her complaint against the present petitioner, who is The General Manager of the said company, she alleges that he has degraded the modesty of women employees and is generally discriminating and harassing them at the work place. After furnishing details of when and how complainant had joined the company and about the professional relationship with the accused also alleges that he was biased towards her and was unnecessarily discriminating between her and male employees. It is further alleged that he has ill-treated the complainant and other women employees namely as stated by her in her complaint as follows:
“1. Forcing us to travel abroad (foreign countries like South Korea and European countries).
2. Forcing us to work in late night shifts.
3. Forcing us to work on holidays and weekends even when there was no work.
4. Spying on us at work place.
5. Putting unnecessary pressure on us to work there by causing un-avoidable stress and strain.
6. Making phone calls to the employees late night for office work to their personal numbers and so on.”
3. From the above statements it would appear that the complainant is not only speaking for herself but for and on behalf of other female employees. The details of whom are not furnished and if one should see from the above allegations they are all related to work and there is no indication of the petitioner having “outraged the modesty” of the complainant and other female employees. On the face of it, it does not disclose an offence as contemplated under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. It is further stated by the learned Senior Advocate that though the complaint was initiated in the year 2011, there has been no progress at all except that the complainant had appeared and part of her statement was recorded in the year 2014. Thereafter there has been hardly any progress. It only results in the petitioner who is holding a senior position in the said company being required to attend the court on every date of hearing and also being prevented from leaving the country when his job requires him to travel frequently abroad and places his career in serious jeopardy on account of the complaint that is pending against him. Consequently, the learned Senior Advocate would seek that the proceedings be quashed.
5. Though the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Sri S V Shastri and the learned State Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose the petition and would submit that there is certainly progress in the criminal case and it would have to be taken to its logical conclusion, the fact remains that the allegations, on the face of it, do not make out an offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code or any other provision of the Indian Penal Code. It only indicates that the petitioner is a hard task master and has sought to put the complainant and others under pressure to work better. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any criminal offence committed. Any late night phone calls or any such other pressure from the petitioner could be easily avoided by the complainant. Therefore, there is no case made out which requires prosecution of the petitioner. The petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.22184/2013 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru stands quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl