The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) comprising of a division bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice B U Debadwar has refused to accept a compromise between the parties in a case registered against a man accused of assaulting the complainant. The complainant, an assistant teacher, submitted in her compromise affidavit that “there was some confusion and misunderstanding between her and the applicant.” (Pradip Raghunath Daud v. State of Maharashtra).
Facts of the Case
This case involves a set of circumstances where the applicant (teacher) has been stalking a married female teacher, and during the schooling hours, the applicant used to allegedly wink at her and chase her. The incident cited in the FIR is of the applicant having offered a film ticket to the complainant and having invited her to accompany him to the theatre. She also screamed at him in full public view, when he held her hand in the presence of male and female co-teachers. Later, she filed an FIR . on the day of this incident under sections 354 (assault or criminal force on woman with intention to outrage her modesty) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code.
In her affidavit, the woman stated that the “academic atmosphere in the school and among other co-teachers has been spoilt since she filed the FIR We both assured that in future, we will not file any criminal complaint against each other. The compromise letter dated 27.01.2021 was signed by me without any coercion or undue influence.”
Contention of the Parties
The learned advocate for the applicant submitted, on instructions, that respondent No.2/ original informant is agreeable to settle the dispute with him and she has entered her compromise undertaking dated 27.01.2021 at page 60 in the paper book. He submitted that the informant has realized that she had filed the complaint against the applicant under a misunderstanding. Her misunderstanding has been cleared and she does not desire to prosecute her complaint. Reliance is placed on the judgment delivered by the learned Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2017 Cri.L. J. 2161.
The learned advocate for respondent No.2/ informant submitted that she has filed an affidavit in reply dated 04.02.2021. She is a married lady, who is an Assistant Teacher in the same educational institution in which, the applicant also serves as an Assistant Teacher. In the said affidavit, she submitted that there was some confusion and misunderstanding between her and the applicant. The academic atmosphere in the school and other co-teachers is spoilt since she has filed the FIR. She has also stated in paragraph 4 that “We both assured that in future we will not filed any criminal complaint against each other. The compromise letter on dated 27.01.2021 was signed by me without any coercion and undue influence.”
Courts Observation & Judgment
However, the division bench felt uneasy with the submission made by the complainant.
The bench said: “When the advocate representing the informant (woman) was addressing us, we could see his discomfort.”
They gathered from her affidavit that “the informant may have been compelled to file an affidavit and tender a compromise undertaking since she states in the affidavit that “she assures that in future she will not file a criminal complaint against the applicant”. This speaks volumes about the pressure possibly exerted on her, either by the applicant or the educational institution."
The bench further said: “In fact, we would have appreciated if the educational institution had taken recourse to the Vishaka Committee recommendations and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013... so as to initiate disciplinary action against him.”
Finally, the court expressed its concern, “The involvement of women employees has to be encouraged in order to bring them in the mainstream along with their male counterparts and [so they can] become a source of earning for the family. This object would be defeated if women employees, who have complained against male employees, are coerced to withdraw their complaints so as to ‘sweep the dirt below the carpet’. We find it unconscionable to accept such compromise as it would surely not be in the interest of justice and would be counter-productive.”
Read ORder @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
