IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2549/2013 Between:
Sri C.Y. Indu Shekar Vasisst S/o. late Sri C. Venkataram Aged about 55 years Chief Administrative Officer Indian Institute of Management Residing at No.210A, 9th A Main 2nd Block, Jayanagar Bengaluru – 560 011. … Petitioner (By Sri. Ravi B. Naik, Senior Counsel a/w Sri. K.B. Monesh Kumar, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka (Through Ashok Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru) Reptd. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru - 01.
2. Dr.Deepa Prabhu W/o. Sri C.S.Prabhu Aged about 51 years r/at No.002, FAIR COURT APARTMENTS 9/1, Myrtle Lane, Richmond Town Bengaluru – 560 025. ... Respondents (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1 Smt. Hemalatha Mahishi, Advocate for R2 ) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the complaint and FIR registered by the 1st respondent police in Cr. No.546/2012 on the complaint lodged pending on the file of the 11th A.C.M.M., Mayohall, Bengaluru by the 2nd respondent for the alleged offences p/u/s 353, 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the FIR registered against him in Crime No.546/2012 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 353, 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC.
2. Petitioner was serving as a Chief Administrative Officer in Indian Institute of Management Bengaluru (IIMB), Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru. At the relevant time, Complainant – respondent No.2 was working as a Resident Medical Officer in IIMB. The petitioner herein terminated the service of respondent No.2/complainant and the same was challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.3722-3723/2012 dated 19.07.2012. The said writ petition was dismissed. It is submitted that even the Writ Appeal No.4940/2012 filed against the said order has been dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.06.2013. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint dated 12.12.2012 before respondent No.1 – Police alleging that during her tenure in the IIMB, she was subjected to sexual harassment by petitioner herein. She has also made various other allegations in the said complaint, based on which, the aforesaid FIR is registered.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the documents produced before the Court clearly indicate that respondent No.2 is frustrated employee. She has ventilated her frustration by lodging the subject complaint. The allegations made in the complaint do not prima facie constitute the ingredients of any of the offences alleged against the petitioner. All these contentions were in fact urged in the writ petition and therefore, there is no justification for the petitioner to initiate criminal action against the petitioner. Thus, he seeks to quash the proceedings.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 is absent. Learned Additional SPP argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie attract the offences alleged against the petitioner and hence, the matter requires to be investigated.
5. Without expressing any opinion on the contentions urged by the petitioner, in my view, having regard to the nature of the allegations made in the complaint, the matter requires to be investigated by the police. However, having regard to the fact that prior to the initiation of the complaint, the respondent has already suffered an adverse order in Writ Petition Nos.3722-3723/2012 the same may also have to be considered by the Investigating Officer while forming final opinion with regard to the allegations made against the petitioner. The petitioner has produced certain documents in support of the contentions urged in the petition, which also may have to be taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer while submitting the Final Report.
6. Hence, directing the Investigating Officer to take into consideration of all the enclosures enclosed to this petition while forming an opinion under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE NBM