Allowed

Sri. Arun Tom v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2024CRL.P/1004/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Sales Manager sought quashing of a charge sheet for sexual harassment after an Internal Complaints Committee dropped proceedings finding no unwelcome conduct. The court examined WhatsApp messages between him and the complainant, found nothing offensive or evidencing demands of sexual favours, allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; chargesheet in Cr.No.43/2019 / C.C.No.2156/2019 under Section 354A IPC quashed.

Sri. Arun Tom Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:28888 CRL.P No. 1004 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1004 OF 2020 (482)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. ARUN TOM S/O K V THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, SALES MANAGER, AKSHAYA MOTORS, DEALERS IN MERCEDES BENZ VEHICLES, HEBBAL, MYSURU-571016

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. AKSHAY S., ADV. FOR SRI. SRINIVASA D.C., ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BY HEBBAL POLICE, MYSURU, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001

¶13

SMT. SHABREEN D/O S.M. JAFFER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.1417, I STAGE, RAJIVNAGAR, BEHIND BABA MEDICALS, MYSURU-570019

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. K.A.CHANDRASHEKARA, ADV. FOR R2.)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:28888 CRL.P No. 1004 of 2020

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEBBAL POLICE IN CR.NO.43/2019 SUBSEQUENTLY REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.2156/2019 AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 354A OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE IV JMFC, MYSURU.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA)

¶22

The petition is filed challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner – accused for an offence punishable under Section 354A of IPC. The police, after investigation, have also laid a chargesheet against the accused.

¶23

A reading of the complaint would indicate that the second respondent – complainant was working as ‘Priority Relation Executive’ and the petitioner herein was working as a ‘Sales Manager’. It is contended that during the course of their working together, the petitioner was calling the second respondent to his cabin and was enquiring

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:28888 CRL.P No. 1004 of 2020

¶25

about her personal details. It was also alleged that she had submitted a complaint to the Managing Director, who

¶26

had forwarded the same to the Internal Complaints Committee on 19.06.2008 and the Internal Complaints Committee had conducted an enquiry and had submitted a report without giving an opportunity to the complainant to

¶27

engage a counsel or any opportunity to defend herself. She, therefore, contended that the petitioner was required to be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 354A of IPC since he had demanded and requested for sexual favours.

¶28

It is not in dispute that on the basis of the complaint lodged by second respondent, an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted and the Internal Complaints Committee, after hearing the petitioner, had come to the conclusion that the explanation given by her was not satisfactory and she had failed to furnish any other evidence to the satisfaction of the Committee. The Committee, therefore, recorded a finding that from the

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:28888 CRL.P No. 1004 of 2020

¶30

explanation offered and the documents produced, there were no unwelcome colourful remarks or any demand of sexual favours by the petitioner and therefore, the proceedings were required to be dropped. This report was dated 24.11.2018.

¶31

The petitioner has, thereafter, on 06.06.2019 presented the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, clear that on failure to secure an order from the Internal Complaints Committee, the second respondent had chosen to present the private complaint nearly seven months thereafter.

¶32

The Police during the course of investigation have secured the messages that were exchanged between the petitioner and the second respondent, which according to the second respondent were offensive.

¶33

Learned High Court Government Pleader produced the said extract of messages and on perusal of the same, it is seen that there are no offensive messages exchanged

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:28888 CRL.P No. 1004 of 2020

¶35

between the petitioner and the second respondent and all

¶36

the messages relate to their work activity.

¶37

7. Having regard to the fact that the entire basis of the

¶38

claim was the unwelcoming conduct of the petitioner, which is not borne from the whatsAapp messages produced and the Internal Complaints Committee report also indicates there is no evidence which justifies the prosecution of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the proceedings are quashed.

¶39

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶40

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶41

HNM

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri. Arun Tom v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Arun Tom v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B G Gangadharaiah Vs State of Karnataka

V G Anand Vs R Kiran Kumar

Sri Sathya Murthy Vs Smt M Preethi

M/S Shree Renuka Sugars Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Shri a C Kurian Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri. Nithyananda Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka