Kerala High Court
Maneesh Mohan vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942
Crl.MC.No.8976 OF 2016(B)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 771/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -II, PEERUMEDU
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MANEESH MOHAN
AGED 33 YEARS, SON OF R.MOHAN KUMAR,
'MOHANAM', TAZHAMEL,
ANCHAL PO, 691 306, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ALAN PAPALI
SRI.NISHIL.P.S.
SRI.J.VIMAL
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031.
2 LILLYMATHEW
AGED 48 YEARS, WIFE OF THOMAS MATHEW,
MANIYAKKAPARAYIL HOUSE,
KARINILAM PO, 686 513,
ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL
R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SUMODU.P.N, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-12-
2020, THE COURT ON 01-02-2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.8976/2016
2
ORDER
The sole accused in C.C.No.771 of 2016 of the Court of Judicial First
Class Magistrate-II, Peerumedu for offences punishable under sections
354A(i) and (ii) of the Indian Penal Code is the petitioner herein.
2. The case of the petitioner/accused is that, he is an Allopathic
doctor working in the Department of Health Services, State of Kerala. He
was the Medical Officer in charge of Public Health Centre (PHC),
Kokkayar. The above PHC had few sub centres under it. Second
respondent, the complainant was the Junior Public Health Nurse, Grade-I,
working in the PHC sub centre, Koottikkal under PHC Kokkayar.
3. The facts discernible from the complaint, dated 15.02.2016, a
copy of which is produced along with the complaint indicates that,
complainant was working in the Sub Centre, Koottikkal for the past 3
years preceding the complaint. Accused who was working as the Medical
Officer at the PHC, Kokkayar had administrative control over Sub Centre,
Koottikkal. She alleged that, ever since taking charge, the accused has
been harassing the complainant psychologically. During duty hours, he
used to come to the Centre under the guise of inspection, used to pick up
conversations with the complainant laced with vulgar language and
sexually coloured gestures. She objected to his approach, however, he
Crl.M.C.8976/2016
continued to call her to the office and used to make verbal advances
towards her, used words with double meaning and with sexually coloured
gestures. This was disclosed by the complainant to her husband, who met
the accused and warned him. To retaliate, the accused got her
transferred to the office of PHC at Kokkayar from 09.02.2016. While she
was working in her office, accused came near her and made sexually
coloured gestures at her. When she did not respond favourably, he
threatened to teach her a lesson and she was directed to co-operate with
him. In the light of her adamant stand, accused recorded adverse
comments in her official records and inspection records. Though a
complaint was laid to the police on 12.02.2016, no action was taken, it
was alleged. Hence, the complaint was laid before the Magistrate
seeking appropriate action. Pursuant to the above complaint, summons
was issued to the accused, pursuant to which, petitioner has approached
this Court.
4. Crl.M.C is filed on a premise that the allegations in the
complaint are absolutely false and that, she was transferred to the
Kokkayar PHC as a part of the drive to improve efficiency at various sub
centres. She did not comply with the transfer order and refused to attend
her duty. Hence, it was reported to the main office. It was stated that,
transfer order was issued for the effective functioning of 6 sub centres
under his jurisdiction. By the above order, limits of jurisdiction of the
different PHC's were re-fixed and employees were redeployed by order
Crl.M.C.8976/2016
dated 27.01.2016. Petitioner did not join at the new office. Ultimately,
she joined only on 14.03.2016. Though, she had initially sought leave
from 04.02.2016 to 06.02.2016, it was not granted. On 04.02.2016, it was
reported from the PHC sub centre where she had been working that the
sub centre was remaining closed. Accused who was attending a meeting,
went to the PHC and with one of the keys retained by him officially, the
centre was opened, for the benefit of the public who used to visit the sub
centre. Thereafter, he kept it locked under his custody. An inspection of
the records revealed that the records were not properly kept in the sub
centre and hence, show cause notice was issued. Her work history was
not satisfactory and hence, she was transferred. To retaliate, she has
filed an absolutely false complaint raising false allegations.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contented that
the records would reveal that the petitioner had not joined duty on
09.02.2016 and consequently, the allegation that the accused made
sexually coloured comments at her on that day at the PHC Centre was
absolutely baseless. The records show that the complainant has been
working in the Koottikkal branch for the past three years. Annexure-XI
proceedings issued by the accused show that the work of staff in few of
the PHC's were re-fixed and some were transferred. It is seen that, on
01.02.2016, the complainant represented to the accused by Annexure-X
that the transfer would cause inconvenience to several persons. It was
also requested that the transfer order may be kept in abeyance. By order
Crl.M.C.8976/2016
dated 01.02.2016 on Annexure-X, accused directed the complainant to
relieve herself from the present post and to take charge of the transferee
office. By Annexure-XI communication dated 09.02.2016, Annexure-X
representation given by the complainant was rejected. By Annexure-XIII
order dated 03.03.2016 of the DMO, Idukki, complainant was directed to
take charge. Annexure-XIV shows that, she took charge on 14.03.2016 at
Kokkayar. By Annexure-XII, show cause notice dated 03.03.2016 was
issued to her for dereliction of duties. The specific contention of the
learned counsel for the complainant was that the above documents itself
show that she was being singled out and harassed by the accused.
6. The specific allegation of the complainant was that, accused
made sexually coloured gestures towards her on 09.02.2016 at his office
at Kokkayar. The records referred to above as Annexures-X to XIII clearly
shows that, inspite of the transfer order, she did not take charge of that
office till 14.03.2016. Evidently, she was not in the office at Kokkayar on
09.02.2016. This clearly falsifies the complaint of the accused in the
private complaint that, on09.02.2016, while she was working in that
office, accused made sexually coloured gestures at her. The above
documents also clearly show that, complainant had refused to comply
with the transfer order and she was issued with charge memo.
7. It is further seen that, prior to the complaint, Annexure-IV
complaint was submitted by the complainant to the State Vanitha
Commission. It was alleged in the complaint that, when she was
Crl.M.C.8976/2016
transferred, she requested to keep it in abeyance. When she went to the
Koottikkal sub centre on 08.02.2016, she found that the office was locked.
On enquiry, it was found that, it was done by the accused. Complaint was
lodged to the police but, no action was taken. When the complainant
went to the office to sign the attendance register, she was prevented from
signing the attendance register. It was also alleged by her that, though
the accused had collected the diaries of all staffs, taken for inspection and
they were returned to the respective holders, the diary of the complainant
was not returned. A further statement was filed by her on 20.06.2016. A
perusal of both the complaints to the Womens' Commission show that, she
never had an allegation that, she was sexually abused or that the accused
had made sexually coloured comments towards her. Definitely, if such an
incident had happened, she would have disclosed such allegation
especially, since it was submitted to the Vanitha Commission. Her
allegation regarding sexual harassment come up for the first time only in
the private complaint. This casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the
allegations.
8. Annexure-IV series is the records relating to the complaint
submitted by the complainant before the State Vanitha Commission and
connected proceedings. In the complaint to the Vanitha Commission, her
grievance was that, she was harassed by the accused by issuing her
memos and also initiating disciplinary proceedings against her.
Annexure-IV series show that the Vanitha Commission got it enquired and
Crl.M.C.8976/2016
statement of all the connected persons, including the complainant and the
accused were recorded. On an evaluation of the above materials, it was
reported that the complaint was baseless. It was also reported that the
complaint could have been laid as a retaliation for transferring her from
her place of employment. It seems that, no action was thereafter taken
by the complainant pursuant to the above complaint.
9. Complainant had a case that, after the alleged attempt of the
accused to sexually harass her, a complaint was given to the police.
Annexure-VI is a reply given by the Sub Inspector of Police of
Peruvanthanam Police Station on 12.12.2016 in reply to the query
submitted by the accused under the RTA Act. It reveals that, complainant
had not submitted any complaint before the Peruvanthanam police
alleging any type of harassment by the accused.
10. After evaluating the entire facts, it is clear that the specific
allegation of sexual harassment does not get its support from any
material. Even though, during the relevant time, petitioner had initiated
several proceedings against the accused, in none of the proceedings,
there was an allegation that the accused had sexually abused her. On the
other hand, such an allegation came up only belatedly. In all the previous
proceedings, her allegation was confined to the harassment in relation to
her employment. Her specific case that on 09.02.2016, she was sexually
harassed is absolutely false, since she had even not taken charge of the
office on that day. After analyzing the entire facts, it is clear that, the
Crl.M.C.8976/2016
allegation of sexual harassment is absolutely baseless. Definitely, the
ingredients of S.354 Cr.P.C are not made out. Prosecuting the petitioner
herein in the light of these materials which have now come on record,
would amount to undue harassment of the accused. Having considered
the entire facts, I am satisfied that the Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed by
quashing C.C.No.771 of 2016 pending before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate-II, Peermade, Idukki District, which is only an abuse of the
process of law.
In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings arising
from C.C.No.771 of 2016 pending before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate-II, Peermade, Idukki District stand quashed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Sbna JUDGE
Crl.M.C.8976/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT C.M.P. NO.
937/2016 DATED 15.2.2016 FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL
MAGISTRETE OF THE FIRST CLASS II, PEERMADE
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY F THE SWORN STATEMENT IN C.M.P.
NO. 937/2016 DATD 23.2.2016 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS -II, PEERMADE
ANNEXURE IIA READABLE COPY OF ANNEXRUE II
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN C.M.P. NO.
937/2016 DATED 30.8.2016 OF CW 2 BEFORE THE
COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE
FIRST CLASS -II, PEERMADE
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAIT DATD 12.2.2016
FILED BY THE 2ND BEFORE THE CONNTECTED
PROCEEDINGS OF THE VANITHA COMMISSION
ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.6.2016
FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
KERALA STATE VANITHA COMMISSION
ANNEXURE VIA TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.12.2016
FROM THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PERUVANTHANAM TO THE PETITIONER
ANNEXURE VII TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATD 24.12.2015
BY V.K. SOMAN TO THE MEDICAL OFFICER,
PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, KOKKAYAR
ANNEXURE VIII TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.01.2016
FROM THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN-CHARGE, PRIMARY
HEALTH CENTRE, KOKKAYAR TO THE DISTRICT
MEDICAL OFFICER, IDUKKI
ANNEXURE IX TREU COPY OF THE ORDER NO.25/2016/M.O.P.H.C
KOKKAYAR DATD 27.1.2016, OF THE MEDICAL
OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, KOKKAYAR.
Crl.M.C.8976/2016
ANNEXURE X TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1.2.2016
FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE MEDICAL
OFFICER PHC, KOKKAYAR
ANNEXURE XI TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.2.2016 FROM
THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN -CHARGE, PRIMARY
HEALTH CENTRE, KOKKAYAR TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE XII TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
3.3.2016 OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
IDUKKI TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE XIII TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.3.2016 FROM
THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, IDUKKI TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE XIV TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.3.2016
FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE MEDICAL
OFFICER, PHC, KOKKAYAR
ANNEXURE XV TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.6.2016 OF
THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, IDUKKI
