Navigating Police Complaints Beyond Internal Committee Decisions

As PoSH practitioners, we frequently encounter questions on an aggrieved woman’s right to approach the local police to file a First Information Report (FIR) while also having approached the Internal Committee for redressal. The direct answer to this would be “yes” since the remedies sought under both redressal mechanisms are independent of each other – the former potentially resulting in criminal liability if proven beyond reasonable doubt.

However, there remains a point of contention – can an individual who has been cleared of allegations of sexual harassment by an Internal Committee (IC) still face additional legal action under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

To understand the stance on this point of law, specifically dealing with cases of sexual harassment, we shall take into consideration deliberations of various High Courts in the following cases:

Usha Padmini & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., Karnataka High Court (2019)

The aggrieved woman alleging sexual harassment against two of her seniors (Petitioners in this case) approached the Internal Committee (IC) seeking redressal. The IC conducted inquiries and exonerated the alleged harassers.

Consequently, the order was appealed in the Labour Court by the aggrieved woman, while she filed an FIR simultaneously with the local police under the IPC, for sexual harassment (Section 354A) and intentional insult (Section 504). The petitioners filed this case before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking to quash the FIR against them. The High Court examined whether the petitioners could be prosecuted for the alleged sexual harassment on the same set of facts and evidence as considered by the Internal Committee.

While considering the merits of the case at hand, the High Court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal vs State of West Bengal & Anr, where it held:

The finding in the adjudication proceeding in favor of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of the finding. If the exoneration in the adjudication proceeding is on technical grounds and not on merit, prosecution may continue.In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal case…in our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether allegation in the adjudication proceeding as well as proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceeding is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceeding, the trial of the person concerned shall be in abuse of the process of the court.

Considering the evidence at hand, the Court found significant additions and improvements in the statement of the aggrieved woman, pointing to the ulterior motive of the aggrieved woman.

The Court, on merits, held that the inquiry conducted by the IC was in respect of the same allegations and, further, the evidence that the IC and the investigating agency relied on were identical. Ordering for the FIR to be quashed, it was held that initiating prosecution for the same violation on the same set of evidence would be unjust and an abuse of the process of the Court.

Ashish Chauhan & Ors. vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., Delhi High Court (2023)

The petitioners filed to quash the FIR filed for sexual harassment (Section 354A) and criminal intimidation (Section 506) under IPC against them. The aggrieved woman, a trainee with the company, raised a complaint of sexual harassment by the petitioners. She claimed that her complaint was not heeded and was forced to quit the job before her tenure.

An anonymous complaint was filed with the National Commission for Women (NCW) against the petitioners and other employees of the company, where it was alleged that the petitioners along with other employees, sexually harassed the aggrieved woman. The company also received an anonymous email regarding the alleged sexual harassment. Later an FIR was filed with the local police against the petitioners. The IC took cognizance of the matter, after the FIR was filed. However, the aggrieved woman refused to appear before the IC when summoned. When she finally appeared before the IC, she denied her involvement in sending the anonymous complaints to the NCW or the company. She then withdrew the complaint before the IC, but the IC proceeded with the inquiry and decided the matter on merits, exonerating the petitioners.

Considering all the evidence at hand, the sequence of events, and the order of the IC, the Court observed that the issues in the proceedings of the IC and the current criminal proceedings were identical. Referring to the precedent set in Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. (2011), State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal (1992), and other cases, the Court held that allowing for the criminal prosecution to continue would be a misuse of power and an exercise in futility. Therefore, the FIRs were quashed.

Mr. Vijay Choudhary vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., Bombay High Court (2023)

The aggrieved woman, working as a center manager at Max Life Insurance Company, filed an FIR alleging sexual harassment by the Petitioner. She claimed that she filed a complaint with the company, but no action was taken against the Petitioner. Later, her father filed a complaint with the company, however, to no avail. In her original complaint, she did not allege acts of sexual harassment. The IC looked into the matter and exonerated the petitioner on merits. Later, she lodged a Non-Cognizable Complaint (NC) with the local police station, alleging that the petitioner had threatened her to leave her job or face the consequences. A subsequent complaint was made by her father to the company. The IC looked into the matter again. She claimed for the first time that the petitioner sexually harassed her. However, the petitioner was exonerated on merits. Subsequently, she proceeded to file the FIR.

The Court perused all available evidence at hand and held that the FIR was filled with improvements and suppression of material facts, pointing to her mala fide intentions to harass the petitioner. Citing the principles laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that continuation of the investigation would be a sheer abuse of the process of law and needed to be quashed in the interests of justice. A Subject Matter Opinion

It is important to note that the High Courts based their conclusion on the merits of each case. While there is still a certain amount of uncertainty on the pertinent question of law, it is worth noting that higher courts have established no specific criteria for discharge from criminal proceedings on being exonerated on merits in internal (adjudicatory) proceedings. Therefore, while it is possible for an FIR to be filed if fresh evidence is presented, each case is and must be considered on its own merits, until a precedent is established.