Allowed

Prasadam Raghu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2024CRLP/3348/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

5 accused petitioners challenged criminal proceedings alleging sexual harassment under IPC 354A. The High Court held allegations regarding 'satisfying the boss' and comments on body shape did not constitute sexual harassment. Noting an unexplained 39-day delay and absence of overt acts, the court quashed the proceedings as an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings under C.C. No. 20976 of 2019 against the petitioners before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, are quashed.

Prasadam Raghu Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE^{NINTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶7

CRIMINAL^PETITIO NO: 3348 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Prasadam Raghu,^{S/o late Lakshmaiah,Aged about 48 years, Occ' PRo.Star} iviJilniij^prof r.ro. sog,^{oz, HiieepViira,-sriram Nagai, secretariatcolony,} Manikonda, Hyderabad.

¶10

2 Shvam Shankar,^{S/oPalaniraian, Aged about 37 years, OccDirector} F;fi;;.;s stJi'u"",^{nlJ rt"t i'to. 205, Block-1, Halmarkvallev Apartments'} Narsingi, Hyderabad,

¶11

...Petitioners/Accused^{No.2& 4}

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana,^{Represented by the PublicProsecutor'High Court} ror ine State of Telingana,^{At Hyderabad}

¶14

,..Respondent

¶15

2 G. Swetha Reddv.^{D/o G. Vasudeva Reddy,Aged about 38 years' Occ'} .r1],'iillt"il mi, F6t r1'io. roi, o*r'.ixi^{tr,tii'dn"iave, oppossiieFruit market'} niiiv Cotiiny,^{vousufgudaJubilee Hills, Hyderabad}

¶16

...ResPondenUCom Plainant

¶17

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr'P C praying that in the circumstances} statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay.be ii.lt.O^{t. iJff for recordsand quash all proce.edingsjn CC No 20976 ot 2019} iat.O-iZ-rZ-2019^{on the file of the lll AdditionalChief Metropolitan Magistrateat} Nampally,^HYderabad.

¶18

I.A. N Ot 2 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr'P C prayingthat in thecircumstances} stated in the^{Memorandumof Grounds of CriminalPetition' the High Court maybe-} pi.rs"a to Stay all^f urther^{in CC No.20976 of 2019 dated12-12-2019 on thef ile of} ir," tit naOitionll^{Chief lvletropolitan Magistrateat Nampally, Hyderabad, including} Jispensing with^{the presenceof the iccused before the court belowpending} disposal of the criminal^petition

¶20

This Petitior coming on for heariftg, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimir al Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R Sushanth Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶21

The Court made tlre following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶23

CRIMINAL^{PETITION NO.3 348 0F 2024}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Petition^{is filed by the petitioners/accused} Nos.2 and 4 under^{Section 482 of the Code ofCriminai} Procedure, 1973^{(for short 'Cr.P.C'') t'o quash the proceedings} against them^{in C.C.No.2O976ol 2O19pending on the fi1e of III-} Additional Chief^{Metropolitan MagistrateatNampally'} Hyderabad. The^{allegationslevelcd againstthe petitioners are} under Sections^{35a (A) (ii) and 509 of IndianPenal Code (for} short'I.P.CJ.

¶26

The facts of the^{case are that the 1st petitioner ls an} Assistant Vice^{President,PROof Star India Private Limited(Star} Maa Division)^{which is a ieading broadcasterin India and is the} exclusive^{licensee of rneciiariglrr's to various sportingevents'} The company along^{with its alhliated companies owns a network} of about 65^{TV channels in eight languages'The2"d petitioner} is the Vice President,^{Programn-ringDepartment of Star India} Private Limited^{(Star MaaDivision)'}

¶27

Tne 2nd respondent/^{rlefacto complainantgavea complaint} on 13.07.2019^{stating that one Ravikanth(A 1) called her in}

¶28

¶29

March, 2019 ;rnd informed her that she had been selected in Big Boss-3 shou'. Upon enquiry, as to how they got her number, she was infcrrmed that she has been a trending star on social media in recent times, as such, she u,as selected. Thereafter, A. 1 met 2"d respondent at News Republic TV in the month of March, where he explained the details of game and later on, the 2"d responde rt met A. 1, Abhishek (A.3) at Baskin Robins, Banjara Hillsr, u'here they discussed further rietails and also met 1st petitioner tt Mint Leaf Restaurant at Srinagar Colonv. The 1st petitioner ruho is a coordinatol discussed about the rules and regulations c,f the show and also informed that the sholl, would go on for 90 c ays staring from 2l.st of Ju1y. Thereafter, tine 2"d respondent ard 1.t petitioner met two to [hree times and in the for.rrth rneetintl, apart from Raghu, the HR Manager of Star Maa g,as also preri( nt where they discussed about remuneration and the 2.d responlent was made to sign on bond papers and due to her prior cor:r;nitments, she skimmed through the said papers and she was^jnformed that she would be given papers in due course. Late r the 2"d respondent was informed that she u.as selected for tr: Big Boss show and she should not take up any projects for a p eriod of three months.

¶30

¶31

on o4.06.2o19^{the 2'd respondentmet the petitionersin} Mint Leaf^{Restaurant where the 2nd petitioner used frlthy} language at her^{sitting by the side of lst petitioner and the} following^{conversation took placebetween the 2"d petitionerand} 2"d respondent

¶32

Shyam^{: Why we shouldtake you in big boss?} Swetha Reddy^{: I did not ask you to select me in Big} Boss.

¶33

Shyam :^{Not like thatrnaclamhow will you satisfii} our boss^?

¶34

Swetha Reddy^{: Whyshoukl I satisfy yourboss'}

¶35

Shyam :^{To come to Big Bossyou shouldsatisfy} our boss^?

¶36

Swetha^{Reddy : I don'thave any need to satisfy your} boss.

¶37

Shyarn When are You^decreasing Your^bodY weight?

¶38

Swetha Reddy^{: Big Boss is a mind game' so that} don't need^{a.ry relationwith body, why are you} asking about^{body shaping'}

¶39

Shyam^{: To look attractive and beautiful' you need} to imPress^{our boss.}

¶40

Swetha Reddy^{: to come to Big Boss-' your boss} ;;.;=;.."^{siie beauties and he takes who looksso'}

¶41

Shvam :^{By seeing,who looks attractiveonly our} bois^{gets imPressed.}

¶42

Swetha^{Reddy: To impressyour boss' I don't have} any interest^{to participatein the show'}

¶43

¶44

t,..

¶45

ShyanL : When you comrnit to impress our boss till the enC of the shou,, they only we will take 1,6e.

¶46

In the r:omplaint the 2",r respondent further alleged that after the atrc,ve conversation, she left the place as Lhe 2nd petitioner inr;rrlted her and she was mentally depressed. Hence, the 2"d respondent lodged the complaint. The police after conducting investigation filed charge sheet for the offences referred supr-a .

¶47

Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing fcr Sri T.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners a nd Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant public Prosecutor aplearing for the respondent-State.

¶48

The cc,r tention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the averr-rents in the charge sheet even if presumed to be true, they do rrot constitute any offence and the statement of 2nd respondent itsclf is not sulficient to proceed against the petitioners.^'f te alleged statement of 2,,d responcient which ,a,as relied upon try the investigating officer, led the petitioners being added as an irccused in the charge sheet, cannot be the sole basis for proc:eding against them and registration of FIR and filing charge s,reet is nothing bnt abuse of process of lar.r,. The averments o;- the complaint does not constilute anv offence

¶49

¶50

much less Section 354 A^{(ii) of I P.C, thereis delay of 40 days in} liling a complaint from the date^{ofalleged incident i'e',} 04.06.2019 is inconceivable,^{since the 2nd respondentisa} journalist by profession. The 2"a respondent^{failed to explain} the delay in^giving the^{complaint. The investigatingofficer} ought to have seen^{that in the absenceof any materialevidence} or attribution of^{overt act or omissionto the petitioners, they} cannot be said to have^{committed any offencemerely on the} basis of preponderance^{of probabilities and the allegationsare} leveled. solely dr.re to^{non-selection to the Big Boss showand as} per the cornplainant also, there^{is no physical attack,demand or} reqrrest for sexual^{favour or makingsexualcolour marks by the} petitioners. As such, the offences^{alleged do not attract to the} petitioners and the charge sheet^{is liable to be quashed'}

¶51

a. On the other hand,^{thelearnedAssistant Public} Prosecutor would submit^{that there are serious allegations} against these petitioners^{and the case is of the year2O19,which} requires trial and^{prayedthe Court to dismiss this petition} directing the trial Court^{to conclude the trial at the earliest'}

¶52

g. Having regard to^{the submissions made and the material} available on record,^{the allegations against these petitionersare}

¶53

. .1i,_

¶54

¶55

the 2"d pettttoner rr",ho is A.4 asked the 2"d respondent as to how she u,ou1d r,atisfy his boss and she has to satisfy his boss to select in tlrr Big Boss show. I{e has also commented on her body shape'. To attract Section 354-,{ of i.p.C, the ingredients of the provisiorL should be satisfied-

¶56

1O. Secti,ln 354-A of I.P.C.. reads as under :

¶57

"354-.q Sexual harassment and punishment for sexua_l har4s5lnsnf -(1) A man committing any of the following acts_

¶58

(i) physi,:21 contact ald arivances involving unwelcome and explici- ;exuaJ or.erlures; or

¶59

[ii)^{a demand or request} for sexual favours; or

¶60

(iii) showir g pornography against the will of a woman: or

¶61

(iv) rnaki:r1; sexualiy coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offenc: of sexual harassrnerrt.

¶62

(2) Any rrirr who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause {ii) ,)r clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigororrs irr pdsonrnent for a term which may extend to three years, or wtth fill(, or wrth both.

¶63

(3) Any n1.m vr'ho commits the offcnce specilied in clause (iv) of sub-sectior (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either descdption for a term which rnay extend to one vear, or u.ith fine, or with bctlr."

¶64

1 1 . In the 1;resent case, the only statemen t of 2"d responclent is that the 2 "^I petitioner asked her as to how she would satisfv

I )

I I

(

his boss, whereas there is no dernand for^{sexrralfavour.} Further, the discussion on body shape does not attract^the offence under Section 354-A⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ of I.P.C and^{as seen from the} record, there is delay of 40 days in^giving complaint^{and no} reasons are assigned by the 2"d respondent^{for the saiddelay'} In column No.8 of the FIR, it is mentioned as "No^de1ay'', whereas, as per the complaint, the incident occurred^on 04.06.2079 and the 2'd respondent^{gavecomplaintto the police} on 13.07.2019 with a delay of 39 days.^{Further the statement} ol Lw.2 who is working as Manager in Mint^{Leaf Restaurant} shows that the 2nd respondent^used to^{visit their restaurant} occasionally and she toid that^{because of Ravikanth and Shyam,} she was not seiected to the Big^{Boss show as she has not given} any commitment to their Boss and that^{she was troubled} mentally and physically.

¶69

Adrnittedly there is delay of 39 days in^{giving complaint} which is not explained and the^{record shows that there is no} explanation with regard to delay.^{Further, the avermentsin the} complaint are that one of the^{accusedstated that 2"d} respondent has to satisfy his boss but^{there is no averment to} show that tjne 2"a respondent^has to^{satisfy the boss sexualiy.} Therefore, Section 354-A^{(ii) does not attract to the petitioners}

¶70

¶71

-ii

¶72

and there ar() no further a\rerrnents to constitute the offence under Sectioe 509 of I.P.C. Viewed from any angle the averrnents cc not constitute any of the offences and further there is une<'rlained delay of 39 days in giving complaint, even though the 2^od respondent is a journalist, which fortifies the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that 2"a respondent [ieve complaint oniy after she came to kno$, that she is not select-ed to Big Boss show. As such, continuation of^{</sup> proceedings .:gainst the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law and tl-re same is labie to be quashed.}

¶73

¶74

1 3. Accord ing1y, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings egainst the petitloners in C.C.No.2O976 of 2Ol9 pending on the fi1e of III Additional Chief Metropolrtan Magistrate a1 .\ampal1y, Hyderabad, is hereby quashed.

¶75

Miscellaneous petitions. if any, pending shall stand

¶76

closed.

¶77

To,

¶78

AssrsrANsr%{Gfl+Hi*: //TRUE COPY// <^,/ \ I, SECTION OFFICER

¶79

1 2 Masistrate at Na nrpa,y, Hyderabad Ii: lli,:i limff H:$:r:rrtan, Two ccs t" tr.proi. piorllll?",Tittt^{Police station} Hvoeraoio^---' Hyderabad^'c)url cutor' High Court for the Staie of re'angana at 4 One CC to {tr R Sushanth Rr 5. two cD copi-.s rddy' Advocate IoPUC]

ADK

8::-!Ar'i*__

/ 1, :J

HIGH COURT

DATED:09l0tgl2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.3348 of 2024

ri:
.--r:-==:
t..2a '( i1' " rAril
t< Ll
q
7
3 ?1NIii ttt{ .f
/.
OF

¶88

ALLOWING THE CRLP

Prasadam Raghu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasadam Raghu v. The State of Telangana

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

Rahul Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Seetharam @ Bhukya Seetharam Vs The State of Telangana

Akash Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Gopalrao Kulkarni Vs M/s Raghavendra Traders

M/s. Strassenburg Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Gaddam Yellaiah Vs The State of Telangana