Delhi High Court
Surajit Chatterjee vs State & Anr. on 25 January, 2023
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
$~35 & 36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 15th November, 2022
Decided on: 25th January, 2023
+ W.P(CRL) 2802/2019
ASHISH CHAUHAN ..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Sumer Singh Boparai,
Mr. Sidhant Saaswat, Ms. Manisha
Jain, Mr. Rohan Wadhwa,
Advocates.
V
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
..... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advocate for
State with SI Mukesh Kumar, P.S.
V. K. (North).
+ W.P.(CRL) 3005/2019 & CRL.M.A.3961/2020
SURAJIT CHATTERJEE ..... PETITIONER
Through: Ms. Sonal Chauhan, Advocate
V
STATE & ANR.
..... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advocate for
State with SI Mukesh Kumar, P.S.
V. K. (North).
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. This common judgment shall decide petitions bearing no. W.P.(CRL)
2802/2019 filed on behalf of the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and W.P.(CRL)
3005/2019 filed on behalf of the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee under Article
226 of the Constitution read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for quashing of FIR
bearing no. 594/2018 dated 01.12.2018 registered under sections 354A/506
IPC, 1860 at P.S. Vasant Kunj (North) District South -West, New Delhi
along with consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR.
2. The perusal of FIR reflects that it was got registered on account of
DD No. 26B dated 01.12.2018 lodged by the respondent no.2 regarding the
sexual harassment at workplace i.e. Head Office, Maruti Suzuki India
Limited (MSIL) and threat to the safety and life of the respondent no.2. The
respondent no.2 stated that she is a lawyer by profession and worked as a
trainee at Head Office, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Vasant Kunj till
August, 2018. The respondent was sexually harassed by the
petitioner/Ashish Chauhan, Archit Ashwani and Surajit Chatterjee
(petitioner in W.P.(CRL) 3005/2019) of the legal team. The
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and Archit Ashwani have been involved in
harassing the trainees earlier sexually as well as work related harassment but
their acts have been covered up by the superior officers repeatedly without
taking any action against them. The respondent no.2 raised the complaint
regarding the harassment meted out to her initially with Shri Lokesh Pandey,
Department Manager but no action was taken by him and thereafter, the
respondent no.2 took up the matter with Ms. Manjree Choudhary, Division
Head but she made clear to the respondent no.2 that the management would
not take any action against their permanent employees and the respondent
no.2 was asked to leave the job. The complaint of the respondent no.2 was
not referred to the Sexual Harassment Committee by Mr. Pandey and Ms.
Manjree rather the respondent no.2 was forced to quit job before the
completion of her tenure.
2.1 The respondent no.2 discussed the issue with Mr. Brijesh Choudhary
and Mr. Gaurav Kaushik of the legal team. The respondent no.2 on
31.10.2018 got a call from Ms. Manju who informed that she is handling the
Sexual Harassment Committee for MSIL. The respondent no.2 also received
a call from Ms. Aarti to whom the respondent no.2 narrated the entire
harassment but no action was contemplated to be taken against the
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
offenders.
2.2 The petitioner/Ashish Chauhan used to stare at respondent no. 2 in a
sexually offending manner by making gestures at her and used to talk with
Archit and Ashwani by using abusive language and lewd comments about
dressing and physical aspects of the respondent no.2. Archit Goswami many
a times also tried to touch the respondent no.2 inappropriately and held her
hand without her consent and also asked the respondent no.2 to come to his
house for drinking.
2.3 An unknown person on 05.11.2018 at about 05:00 pm came to the PG
Hostel of the respondent no.2 and asked about her details like home address,
timings, etc. but did not disclose his identity. The respondent no.2 was not
present at PG Hostel at that time on that day and came to know about the
visit from the owner of the PG Hostel. The respondent no.2 immediately
called up Mr. U. K. Sharma, Admin Head of the Maruti who was also aware
about harassment caused to the respondent no.2. On 06.11.2018, another
person came posing himself as a clerk from a lawyer‟s office to the house of
the sister of the respondent no.2 situated at Dwarka and tried to know the
details of the respondent no.2.
2.4 The respondent no.2 thereafter called up Ms. Manju and Ms. Aarti
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
who confirmed that none from the MSIL was sent to the place of the
respondent no.2. The respondent no. 2 left PG hostel on 30.11.2018 and was
looking for an auto for office then one person started to chase her and stared
her weirdly. The respondent no.2 apprehended about her life and no action
has ever been taken on the basis of the complaint. Thereafter, on the basis of
the complaint, the present FIR under sections 354A/506 IPC was got
registered.
3. The petitioner/Ashish Chauhan in W.P.(CRL) 2802/2019 stated that
he is a Law Graduate and working as an in-house Counsel (Manager - Legal
and Special Projects) with Maruti Suzuki India Limited at Head Office,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and is associated with the company for more than
11 years. The respondent no. 2 was temporarily inducted as an intern/trainee
in Legal Department-2 (Litigation Team) and interned for an approximate
period of 10 months.
3.1 The present FIR was got registered on the basis of a bogus and false
complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 with a malicious intention to harass
the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and tarnish his reputation. No prima facie
case for the offences punishable under sections 354A/506 IPC is made out
qua the petitioner. The Police have not submitted any charge-sheet after
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
conclusion of the investigation.
3.2 The Internal Complaints Committee, MSIL constituted under the
Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013, received a complaint in the form of FIR on
04.12.2018. Thereafter, a detailed and exhaustive inquiry was conducted.
The Internal Complaints Committee has categorically examined the
allegations made in the FIR and thereafter vide Final Report dated
19.08.2019 exonerated the petitioner from all the charges and allegations
levelled by the complainant/respondent no.2.
3.3 The petitioner/Ashish Chauhan stated that Surender Kumar, Advisor
Legal Department-2 orally instructed the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan to
accommodate the respondent no.2 as a legal intern/trainee for some time.
The respondent no.2 sent an e-mail along with her resume to the
petitioner/Ashish Chauhan on 06.09.2017 requesting to join as an intern in
the organization. The respondent no.2 vide an e-mail dated 07.09.2017 was
asked to join for the training w.e.f. 18.09.2017. The working atmosphere of
the MSIL was explained to the respondent no.2 and was categorically
informed that she would only be working as an intern/trainee for a few
months.
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
3.4 Surender Kumar attached the respondent no.2 with Surajit Chatterjee,
Deputy Manager, Legal Department-2 (petitioner in W.P.(CRL)3005/2019)
who used to exclusively handle the labor (IR) matters/litigation in various
Courts of Gurugram under the guidance/supervision of Surender Kumar.
Surender Kumar also asked the respondent no.2 to support/assist Surajit
Chatterjee (petitioner in W.P.(CRL)3005/2019) in the labour/IR matters and
research work. The respondent no.2 also used to attend the Courts and
briefing sessions at the office of the standing counsel(s) of the company for
labour/ IR matters at Gurugram and Delhi under the guidance of Surajit
Chatterjeee (petitioner in W.P.(CRL)3005/2019) and Surender Kumar. The
respondent no.2 was also provided with an individual official laptop, e-mail,
internet facility and was given stipend for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month
besides other facilities. The petitioner/Ashish Chauhan never handled the
labour/IR matters as such the respondent no.2 never worked or got
associated with the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan. The petitioner/Ashish
Chauhan has regularly travelled out of station for official work during the
period from October to December, 2017 for official assignment.
3.5 The company has an open workplace culture and CCTV cameras were
installed everywhere. The petitioner/Ashish Chauhan neither made any
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
phone call to the respondent no.2 nor even sent any inappropriate message
during or after the training/internship of the respondent no.2. The
petitioner/Ashish Chauhan was transferred to work directly with Executive
Director - Legal and General Counsel of MSIL on 03.04.2018. The
internship/training of the respondent no.2 got concluded in the month of
August, 2018 and during this period she never made any complaint or raised
any issue qua the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan.
3.6 The respondent no.2 vide e-mail dated 23.08.2018 requested the
Department Head to clear the dues and issue the certificate and even then the
respondent no.2 did not mention any grievance against the petitioner/Ashish
Chauhan. The respondent no.2 was issued a training completion certificate
dated 31.08.2018 by the Litigation Head of Legal Department-2, which was
duly received by the respondent no.2 without any protest.
3.7 An anonymous complaint was filed on 20.10.2018 at the National
Commission of Women against the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and other
employees of MSIL wherein it was alleged that the petitioner/Ashish
Chauhan along with other employees sexually harassed the respondent no.2
and the said complainant was filed maliciously in order to harass the
petitioner/Ashish Chauhan. The Chairman, MSIL also received an
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
anonymous e-mail 20.10.2018 on similar lines by the respondent no.2.
MSIL received a letter from the National Commission for Women (NCW)
on 28.11.2018 regarding the aforesaid complaint. The respondent no.2 on
01.12.2018, in connivance with ex-employees/employees of the Company
registered a false FIR bearing no. 594/2018 under sections 354A/506 IPC.
3.8 The Internal Complaints Committee of MSIL was constituted on the
basis of said FIR under the Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and thereafter after taking
cognizance, necessary enquiry was initiated.
3.9 The respondent no.2 was asked to appear before the Committee on
08.12.2018 but she did not appear. The petitioner/Ashish Chauhan on
25.12.2018 submitted a representation to the concerned I.O., P.S. Vasant
Kunj (North) for participation in the investigation and denied all the
allegations.
3.10 The respondent no.2 also filed a complaint on 04.01.2019 before the
Delhi Commission for Women. The respondent no.2 appeared before the
Internal Complaints Committee on 10.01.2019 and denied sending the
anonymous e-mails to the Chairman, MSIL and the complaint to NCW and
has also denied having written anonymous complaint dated 20.10.2018. The
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
petitioner also submitted written reply along with documents before the
Internal Complaints Committee on 14.03.2019. The respondent no.2
withdrew the complaint against the petitioner before the Internal Complaints
Committee on 07.05.2019 and other authorities but the Internal Complaints
Committee proceeded with the enquiry and decided the matter on merits.
The Internal Complaints Committee after an exhaustive and detailed enquiry
exonerated the petitioner along with other employees of the company vide
Final Report dated 19.08.2019. The Internal Complaints Committee
observed that there is an open workplace and also concluded that the
respondent no.2 has not been able to establish any case of sexual harassment
against the petitioner and others. It is prayed that the present petitions be
allowed and FIR bearing no. 594/2018 be quashed.
4. The petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee in petition bearing
no.W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 stated that he is a law graduate from West Bengal
National University of Juridical Sciences and joined MSIL as Deputy
Manager in its Legal Department on 07.11.2014 and left the company on
20.06.2018. The petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee was handling high stake
industrial dispute/labour matters and related advisory.
4.1 The respondent no.2 joined the company as „trainee‟ on
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
recommendation of Surender Kumar Kataria, the then Advisor Legal
Department on 18.09.2017. The respondent no.2 assisted the
petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee in labour/industrial dispute matters during the
period from November, 2017 to February, 2018 and thereafter she was
deputed to assist other legal officers of the company. There was no
interaction between the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee and the respondent no.2
on any issue post February, 2018.
4.2 The present FIR was lodged on the basis of false and frivolous
complaint made by the respondent no.2 with malafide intention. The
respondent no.2 has not made any specific allegations of harassment against
the petitioner in the FIR. The respondent no.2 has made false and frivolous
FIR after 06 months of leaving the company. No charge-sheet has been filed
by the Investigating Officer. The Internal Complaints Committee constituted
under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 considered the copy of FIR received
on 04.12.2018 and after the detailed inquiry has exonerated the
petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee vide Final Report dated 19.08.2019.
4.3 The respondent no.2 besides other facilities was also given
Rs.15,000/- per month as stipend. The respondent no.2 was also visiting the
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
empanelled lawyers of the company and also participated in the legal
conferences.
4.4 The respondent no.2 used to sit at the third floor along with other
trainees whereas the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee used to sit on first floor of
the Vasant Kunj Office of MSIL. The petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee was not
aware when the training of the respondent no.2 got concluded in MSIL as he
left the Company on 20.06.2018. The respondent no.2 during her training
period with the petitioner had never reported/complained about any
unwelcoming behavior, sexual harassment or any other harassment qua the
petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee. The relation of petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee
with respondent no. 2 was strictly professional and only related to the work.
No specific allegations were made against the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee.
4.5 An anonymous complaint was filed at the National Commission of
Women (NCW) against the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee on 20.10.2018 and
other employees of MSIL regarding the alleged sexually harassment caused
to the respondent no. 2 along with other employees. The Chairman, MSIL
also received an anonymous e-mail complaint on 20.10.2018 on similar
lines. The respondent no.2 in connivance with some mischievous ex-
employees and employees of MSIL got lodged a false, frivolous and
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
motivated FIR on 01.12.2018 without substantiating any allegation against
the petitioner. The respondent no.2 on 10.01.2019 appeared before the
Internal Complaints Committee after repeated reminders and multiple follow
ups.
4.6 The petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee fully cooperated in the proceedings
conducted by the Committee. The respondent no.2 vide an e-mail sent on
07.05.2019 stated that she does not wish to pursue the matter with Internal
Complaints Committee and other authorities and requested to withdraw the
complaint. However, Internal Complaints Committee proceeded with the
enquiry and adjudicated upon the matter based on the pleadings and other
materials including statement of witnesses. The petitioner was exonerated by
the Committee vide Final Report dated 19.08.2019. The present FIR is an
afterthought and motivated. It is prayed that FIR bearing no.594/2018 be
quashed.
5. The respondent/State filed the Status Report wherein it is stated that
the present FIR bearing no.594/2018 was got registered on the basis of
complaint made by the respondent no.2 under sections 354A/506/34 IPC
regarding the sexual harassment at workplace as well other related
harassment. It is alleged by respondent no.2 that the petitioner/Ashish
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
Chauhan used to stare at her in a sexually offending manner, making
gestures over her and also used to talk with co-accused Archit Ashwani
regarding her dressing and physical aspects. The petitioner/Ashish Chauhan
and Archit Ashwani also tried to touch her on number of occasions without
her consent. The statement of the respondent no.2 was also recorded under
section 164 of the Code wherein the respondent no.2 made allegations
against the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee regarding the sexual harassment.
The petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee did not join the investigation. The
exoneration in Internal Complaints Committee proceeding of the department
may not be taken as ground for quashing of criminal proceeding. It is stated
that the present petitions be dismissed.
6. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.(CRL) 2802/2019 advanced arguments and also submitted the written
arguments. It is primarily argued that the criminal prosecution cannot be
continued on the same allegations after independent Statutory Committee
has exonerated the petitioner. The respondent no.2 did not cooperate with
the Internal Complaints Committee despite several reminders and follow ups
and sole purpose of the respondent no. 2 was to harass the petitioner in
connivance with others employees/ex-employees of the company. No prima
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
facie case is made out against the petitioner. The reliance is placed on
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari V CBI & another, (2020) 9 SCC 636,
Radheshyam Kejriwal V State of W. Bengal & another, (2011) 3 SCC
58 and P.S. Rajya V. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1.
7. Ms. Sonal Chauhan, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(CRL)
3005/2019 argued that Internal Complaints Committee after a thorough
investigation exonerated the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee from charges made
by the respondent no. 2 and stated that, ICC could not establish any forceful
behavior from the petitioner towards the respondent no. 2. The only
allegation that was made against the petitioner was that at the office the
respondent no. 2 was sexually assaulted by one Surajit Chatterjee i.e. the
petitioner. The respondent no. 2 has only mentioned the name of the
petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee and has not described any incident and mere
mentioning of sexual harassment without substantiating the allegations does
not result in sexual harassment under section 354A IPC. The counsel further
argued that during the internship, the respondent no.2 never complained
about unwelcoming behavior from the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee and only
after six months of leaving the company, FIR was lodged. The respondent
no.2 used to sit on third floor and the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee used to sit
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
on the first floor. MSIL follows an open office system where there are no
cubicles or cabins and every corner of the office is covered by CCTV.
7.1 The respondent no.2 did not co-operate with Internal Complaints
Committee and did not produce any witnesses in favor of her complaint.
There is no incriminating evidence that can prove sexual harassment or
criminal intimidation by the petitioner. FIR is belated, after thought,
motivated and malicious and is filed to abuse the process of law. The
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon‟ble
Supreme Court and High Courts. It is argued that FIR be quashed.
8. The Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 argued on
the basis of contents of the Status Report. It is argued that both the
petitioners have caused sexual harrassment to the respondent no.2 at her
workplace. The findings given by the Internal Complaints Committee do
not affect in any manner prosecution arising out of FIR bearing
no.594/2018. It was argued that both the petitions be dismissed.
9. It is reflecting that the respondent no. 2 is a lawyer by profession.
The respondent no. 2 was introduced as an intern/trainee in Legal
Department-2 (litigation team) at the instance of Surender Kumar, Advisor,
Legal Department-2. The respondent no. 2 sent an e-mail along with her
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
resume to the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan on 06.09.2017 for joining as an
intern in MSIL and was asked to join the training w.e.f. 18.09.2017 vide e-
mail dated 07.09.2017. The petitioner/Ashish Chauhan was working as an
in-house Counsel (Manager-Legal and Special Projects). The
petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee joined MSIL as a Deputy Manager in Legal
Department on 07.11.2014 and left MSIL on 20.06.2018.
9.1 The respondent no. 2 joined MSIL on 18.09.2017 and was attached
with the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee to assist in labour/industrial disputes.
The respondent no. 2 remained attached with the petitioner/Surajit
Chatterjee during the period w.e.f. November, 2017 to February, 2018. The
respondent no. 2 never remained under or attached with the
petitioner/Ashish Chauhan. The respondent no. 2 concluded her
training/internship with MSIL in the month of August, 2018 and was issued
Training Completion Certificate dated 31.08.2018 by the Litigation Head of
Legal Department-2.
9.2 An anonymous complaint was filed on 20.10.2018 at National
Commission of Women against the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and
petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee and others regarding the alleged sexual
harassment caused to the respondent no. 2. The Chairman, MSIL also
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
received similar complaint through e-mail on 20.10.2018. Thereafter the
respondent no. 2 got registered the present FIR bearing no. 594/2018 dated
01.12.2018 wherein petitioners and others were implicated. The Internal
Complaints Committee was constituted under Sexual Harassment for
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
wherein the respondent no. 2 appeared on 10.01.2019. The respondent no.
2 vide e-mail sent on 07.05.2019 stated that she did not wish to pursue her
complaint with Internal Complaints Committee and requested to withdraw
the complaint. However, Internal Complaints Committee proceeded with
the enquiry and exonerated the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and the
petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee after conclusion of the proceedings vide Final
Report dated 19.08.2019.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and the
learned counsel for the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee primarily argued that the
criminal prosecution cannot continue on the same allegation particularly
after Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the statute has
exonerated the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and the petitioner/Surajit
Chatterjee vide Final Report dated 19.08.2019 and relied upon judgments as
referred hereinabove. They also argued that the present FIR has been
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
registered only to harass the petitioners in connivance with other
employees/ex-employees of MSIL and no offence is made out from FIR
against the petitioners or any of the petitioners and argued that the present
petitions be allowed.
11. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was enacted to provide protection
against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention
and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto. Section 4 of Sexual Harassment of Women
at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 deals with
constitution of Internal Complaints Committee and provides that every
employer of a workplace shall constitute a Committee to be known as the
Internal Complaints Committee. MSIL on the basis of FIR bearing
no.594/2018, constituted Internal Complaints Committee which conducted
detailed enquiry and exonerated the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan and the
petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee vide Final Report dated 19.08.2019. The legal
issue which requires judicial consideration and assessment is that whether
after exoneration vide Final Report dated 19.08.2019, the petitioner/Ashish
Chauhan and the petitioner/Surajit Chattarjee are still liable to face
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
prosecution arising out of present FIR bearing no. 594/2018.
11.1 It was observed by the Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath
Tewari V CBI & another, (2020) 9 SCC 636 that the standard of proof in a
departmental proceeding being based on preponderance of probability is
somewhat lower than the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding where
the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court
referred P.S. Rajya V State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1 wherein the question
before the Court was as under:-
3. The short question that arises for our consideration in this
appeal is whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the
prosecution against the appellant under Section 5(2) read with
Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge the appellant
was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light of a
report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and
concurred by the Union Public Service Commission.
It was held as under:-
17. At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the
respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of
proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher
than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the
departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present
case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the
criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the
findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the
ultimate result of it.
23. Even though all these facts including the Report of the Central
Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High
Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the Report
of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of
the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude
the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that
for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the
criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be
pursued. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the
High Court as stated above. These are the reasons for our order
dated 27-3-1996 for allowing the appeal and quashing the
impugned criminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs.
11.1.1 The Supreme Court in Ashoo Surender Nath Tewari also referred
Radheshyam Kejriwal V State of West Bengal and another, (2011) 3
SCC 581wherein it was held as under:-
26. We may observe that the standard of proof in a criminal case
is much higher than that of the adjudication proceedings. The
Enforcement Directorate has not been able to prove its case in the
adjudication proceedings and the appellant has been exonerated
on the same allegation. The appellant is facing trial in the criminal
case. Therefore, in our opinion, the determination of facts in the
adjudication proceedings cannot be said to be irrelevant in the
criminal case. In B.N. Kashyap [AIR 1945 Lah 23] the Full Bench
had not considered the effect of a finding of fact in a civil case
over the criminal cases and that will be evident from the following
passage of the said judgment: (AIR p. 27)
"... I must, however, say that in answering the question, I have
only referred to civil cases where the actions are in personam
and not those where the proceedings or actions are in rem.
Whether a finding of fact arrived at in such proceedings or
actions would be relevant in criminal cases, it is unnecessary for
me to decide in this case. When that question arises for
determination, the provisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act,
will have to be carefully examined."
29. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
submission of Mr Malhotra that the finding in an adjudication
proceeding is not binding in the proceeding for criminal
prosecution. A person held liable to pay penalty in adjudication
proceedings cannot necessarily be held guilty in a criminal trial.
Adjudication proceedings are decided on the basis of
preponderance of evidence of a little higher degree whereas in a
criminal case the entire burden to prove beyond all reasonable
doubt lies on the prosecution.
31. It is trite that the standard of proof required in criminal
proceedings is higher than that required before the adjudicating
authority and in case the accused is exonerated before the
adjudicating authority whether his prosecution on the same set of
facts can be allowed or not is the precise question which falls for
determination in this case.
The Supreme Court after referring to various judgments culled
out the ratio of those decisions in paragraph 38 as under:-
38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can
broadly be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be
launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before
initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are
independent in nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the
adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for
criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is
not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the
provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the
person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the
nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is
on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue;
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the
allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held
innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and
circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying
principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.
39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to
whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as
the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of
the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits.
In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the
provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of
the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.
11.1.2 The Supreme Court after relying on above referred judgment held as
under:-
8. Applying the aforesaid judgments to the facts of this case, it is
clear that in view of the detailed CVC order dated 22.12.2011, the
chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts
appear to be bleak. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the
High Court and that of the Special Judge and discharge the
appellant from the offences under the Penal Code.
11.2 The relevant conclusion of Final Report dated 19.08.2019 is reproduced
as under:-
CONCLUSION
The members of the Committee have perused the entire
statements of the Complainant, Witnesses and Respondents along
with the materials placed on records by the respective parties.
Since the Complainant has not informed any date of incidents; as
such, it was not viable for IC to get the CCTV footage to examine
the same. Also, video footage has a specified storage time, after
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 23
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
which it is automatically deleted from the system. It may be noted
that in the open workspace culture, any wrong behaviour could
possibly have been seen by other employees or she could have
informed or discussed with anyoneat the workplace.
Four witnesses i.e. Mr. Brijesh Chaudhry, l\/lr. U.K. Sharma, Mr.
R.K. Sharma and Mr. Gaurav Kaushik supported the
Complainant's version as the Complainant had made similar
statements to them as well. However, they had not witnessed any
of the incidents, so it is hearsay.
Six witnesses ie Ms. Aakriti, Ms. Jayashree, Ms. Devyani, Mr
Surinder Kataria, Mr. Lokesh Pandey and Ms. Manjaree
Chaudhary denied that the Complainant had told them anything.
The other witnesses were not aware of any issue and could not
corroborate her statement.
Hence IC could not establish any instance of physical touching or
advances.
However, the IC believes that there were two very clearly
demarcated groups in the Legal-2 team and atmosphere was not
cordial and decorum was not maintained. IC also felt that many
witnesses and Respondents were aggressive with even the IC.
However, with respect to the conspiracy as alleged by
Respondents and few witnesses by the ex-employees i.e Mr.
Surinder Kataria and Mr. Brijesh Choudhary along with Mr.
R.K. Shanna, Gaurav Kaushik and the Complainant herself, IC
was provided with no evidence to prove the same.
There seems to be a high probability that the Complainant felt
pressurized and constrained as there was caucus and lack of team
work, trust, and cordial relations in the Division. All Legal
Department witnesses stated that there is only professional
interaction and there is no personal interaction, which seems
strange in such a compact group. All witnesses also stated that
none of them discussed the case with each other, even though
there was no advisory given to them by the IC till then. That
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
seems to be improbable lie and implies an atmosphere of
constraint.
The final conclusions are as follows:
1. The IC, after evaluating the facts placed on record and no
cross-examination, has not been able to establish any case of
Sexual Harassment against Respondent no, 1, 2 &3 due to the lack
of evidences available. Since the Complainant has already
withdrawn her complaint and is no more willing to co operate and
further participate in the proceedings, IC could not make out a
clear conclusion with respect to Sexual Harassment.
2. The IC also feels that the employee grievance redressal
mechanism could have been better. As alleged by the Complainant
also, if this matter had been handled with more discretion and
sensitivity by the seniors at an early stage, it would not have
escalated the way it did.
3. The IC also observed that there were major administrative
issues in respect of a formal HR process of engaging or confirming
a trainee/ intern in Legal Division. Further, IC found that no
mechanism existed there to impart training, fix stipend or provide
feedback to interns.
11.3 The perusal of Final Report dated 19.08.2019 reflects that the Internal
Complaints Committee was constituted as per the mandate of section 4 of
the Act on the basis of FIR bearing no.594/2018. During the enquiry, the
statements of the respondent no.2, the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan, the
petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee, and more than 20 witnesses were recorded.
The proceedings were conducted in camera. The Internal Complaints
Committee also received an e-mail from the respondent no. 2 on 07.05.2019
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 25
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
that she did not want to pursue with the complaint and it also appeared that
e-mail dated 07.05.2019 was written without any force, fear and coercion.
The Internal Complaints Committee despite the e-mail dated 07.05.2019
preferred to proceed with the enquiry arising out of the FIR bearing
no.594/2018 and gave the Final Report dated 19.08.2019 on merits although
the respondent no.2 did not produce herself for cross-examination due to the
reasons best known to her. The Final Report dated 19.08.2019 was given on
merits and in the said enquiry, all the facts as mentioned in the FIR were
investigated and enquired into. The issues in the proceedings conducted by
the Internal Complaints Committee and in present criminal prosecution are
identical and in conduction of enquiry/investigation by the Internal
Complaints Committee, the provisions of the Act were duly complied with
and have not been contravened. In these circumstances, there is a force in
the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel/counsel of the
petitioners that the criminal proceedings/prosecution arising out of FIR
bearing no. 594/2018 cannot be continued particularly, when the petitioners
were exonerated by the Internal Complaints Committee vide Final Report
dated 19.08.2019. The proceedings arising in pursuance of FIR bearing
no.594/2018 cannot be sustained in the law. If the investigation/prosecution
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
in pursuance of FIR bearing no. 594/2018 is allowed to be continued then it
shall be an abuse of process of law.
12. The learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the petitioners also argued that
the allegations as made in FIR bearing no. 594/2018 are false and even they
are admitted to be correct then no offence under sections 354A/506 IPC is
made out. Section 354A IPC deals with sexual harassment and punishment
for sexual harassment. It reads as under:-
354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual
harassment--
(1) A man committing any of the following acts--
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and
explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the
offence of sexual harassment.
(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or
clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of
sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine,
or with both.
Section 503 IPC defines criminal intimidation. Section 506 IPC
provides punishment for criminal intimidation.
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 27
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
12.1 The perusal of FIR bearing no. 594/2018 reflects that it was got
registered on 01.12.2018 while the respondent no.2 left MSIL in the month
of August, 2018. It reflects that the FIR bearing no.594/2018 was got
registered much after leaving of MSIL by the respondent no.2. The
respondent no.2 has made only general allegations without any specific
detail. The respondent no.2 mentioned that the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan
used to stare her in sexually offending manner by making gestures at her and
used to pass lewd comments about her dressing and physical aspects but
these allegations are without any specification. The respondent no. 2 did not
make any allegation in FIR bearing no. 594/2018 but as per the Status
Report, the respondent no.2 made allegation against the petitioner/Surajit
Chatterjee regarding the sexual harassment in statement recorded under
section 164 of the Code. If all the allegations as made by the respondent
no.2 are taken to be true even then, no offences under sections 354A/506
IPC are made out.
12.2. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana V Ch. Bhajan Lal, (1992)
Supp 1 SCC 335 has laid down guidelines for the High Courts under which
inherent powers under section 482 of the Code can be exercised which are as
under:-
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 28
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
13. The Supreme Court continuously observed that the extraordinary power
under section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and with great
care and caution and can be used to prevent abuse of the process of the court
or to secure ends of justice and the exercise of inherent powers entirely
depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Section 482 saves the
inherent power of the High Court and reads as follows:-
Section. 482. Saving of inherent power of High Court.- Nothing in
this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of
the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
13.1 The Supreme Court in Sushil Suri V Central Bureau of Investigation
and another,(2011) 5 SCC 708, considered the scope and ambit of the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and observed as under:-
16. Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure itself envisages three
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised by the High Court, namely, (i) to give effect to an order
under Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It
is trite that although the power possessed by the High Court
under the said provision is very wide but it is not unbridled. It has
to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the
Court exists.
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 30
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000588 & 2023/DHC/000589
14. If the consequential proceedings arising out of FIR bearing no. 594/2018
are allowed to be continued, it will be misuse of power and exercise in
futility. In view of above discussions, the present petitions are allowed and
FIR bearing no. 594/2018 registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj (North) under
sections 354A/506 IPC is quashed along with consequential proceedings
including judicial proceedings qua the petitioner/Ashish Chauhan (petitioner
in W.P.(CRL) 2802/2019 and the petitioner/Surajit Chatterjee (petitioner in
W.P.(CRL) 3005/2019.
15. The petitions bearing no. W.P.(CRL) 2802/2019 and W.P.(CRL)
3005/2019 along with pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN)
JUDGE
JANUARY 25, 2023
j/sd
W.P.(CRL)2802/2019 & W.P.(CRL)3005/2019 Page 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:27.01.2023
17:00:55
