Uttarakhand High Court
Navneet Tomar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 22 June, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 931 of 2021
Navneet Tomar ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Lata Negi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos.1
and 2.
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate for respondent no.3/informant.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for quashing the FIR No.494 of 2021, under Sections
354-A, 354-B, 353, 452, 506 and 509 IPC, of a Police Station in District
Haridwar and also for directions that the petitioner may not be arrested
pursuant to the FIR.
2. FIR in the present case, was lodged by a lady Judicial Officer,
who was posted as the Judge Family Court when the incident occurred. It is
lodged on 10.06.2021. The petitioner is an advocate holding the post of
Secretary in one of the Bar Associations. The report is with regard to sexual
harassment by him.
3. According to the FIR, the petitioner subjected the informant to
insult and harassment and made her work environment a very hostile one;
Allegations of sexual harassment have been levelled by the informant against
the petitioner; the petitioner would enter the chamber of the officer; invite her
in his chamber and once in fact, persuaded her to do so in the name of
inaugurating his chamber; there he took photographs; he made telephonic calls
to the informant at odd hours; visited the house of the informant and in fact,
once sent a message, "LADLI MADAM, I AM SORRY"; one incident is quoted
in the FIR, that on that date at 08:12 PM, the petitioner made a telephone call
to the informant and when the informant scolded him for his repeated
misbehaviour and warned him not to call her again; the petitioner again called
at 08:30 PM and told the informant to report the matter to whom so ever she
wishes to report to; thereafter between 08:40 PM and 08:52 PM, the petitioner
called the informant 11 times; the matter was reported to the higher authorities
by the informant and under directions, FIR has been lodged. The FIR includes
other minute details as well.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
informant is an influential person and the petitioner apprehends that the
investigation may not be fair and the procedure as provided under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 may not be followed.
5. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, appearing for the
informant would submit that the conduct of the petitioner does not warrant any
interference by this Court; it is submitted that in fact, a Division Bench of this
Court has issued notice to the petitioner for criminal contempt requiring him to
appear before the Court.
6. Learned State counsel would submit that the offence is serious
against the society; there are specific allegations against the petitioner.
7. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It
is an extra ordinary jurisdiction. There are guidelines which governs exercise
of jurisdiction. If a prima facie case is made out, generally no interference is
warranted. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals something most grave. A lady
Judicial Officer while she was posted as a Family Court Judge, has been
allegedly sexually harassed, insulted, her privacy intruded; she was in fact,
telephoned at odd hours and threatened. Does not a message like, "LADLI
MADAM, I AM SORRY" reveal the mind-set and intention of the petitioner?
This message, apart from falling in any penal provisions is also in bad taste.
Especially, the fact that this comes from a person who claims to be a member
of a Bar and holds a position of Secretary in a Bar Association. This Court has
no doubt that such offences should be firmly dealt with in accordance with the
procedure known to law. Such matters should be promptly investigated and if,
police report is submitted, the trial should be concluded expeditiously.
8. Having considered the allegations as levelled against the
petitioner in the FIR, this Court does not see any reason to exercise the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
22.06.2021
Sanjay
