Without Partition By Metes And Bounds, Co-Sharer Cannot Seek Recovery Of Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of Order VII Rule 7 CPC Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff Entitled To Declaration Of Title Over Undivided Half Share Despite Claiming Entire Property Under Gift Deed Supreme Court Reaffirms Legality Of Remainder Of Natural Life Sentences Without Remission, Dismisses Batch Of Writ Petitions 'State Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Wrong': Supreme Court Holds Promotees Entitled To Count Ad Hoc Service For Seniority If Within Quota 'Elevators Are Common Carriers, Entail Heightened Duty of Care': Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order Holding OTIS Principally Liable For Death Due To Malfunctioning Lift Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, Holds Reach Stacker Operating in Custom-Bonded ICD Area Is Not a "Motor Vehicle" Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer Subsequent Suit Generally Transferable To Court Where Earlier Suit On Same Subject Matter Is Pending: Allahabad High Court Successive Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Under BNSS If Fact Situation Changes Or Previous Findings Become Obsolete: Andhra Pradesh High Court Tenant's "Deemed Purchaser" Right Defeated By Retrospective Notification Under Section 88(1)(b) Of Tenancy Act: Bombay High Court Buyer Not Entitled To Refund Of Earnest Money Once Sale Deed Is Duly Executed Under The Agreement: Calcutta High Court Contradictory Pleas Vitiate Defence; Drawer Liable Even If Signed Blank Cheque Was Handed Over: Delhi High Court Working Mother's Relocation To Another City Not A Ground To Completely Deny Overnight Custody To Father: Karnataka High Court Civil Courts Barred From Granting Injunctions Against SARFAESI Actions Even If Partition Suit Is Maintainable: Kerala High Court S.147 NI Act Is A Special Law, Overrides S.320 CrPC; Offence Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Appeal: Madras High Court Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court

Physical Contact During Resistance Not Sexual Harassment: Kerala High Court

15 October 2024 12:20 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court of Kerala quashed the FIR filed against Dr. P.K. Baby, a professor and Director of the Youth Welfare Board at CUSAT, for allegedly assaulting a female student during a youth festival. The court ruled that the complaint, filed months after the incident, lacked bona fides and did not establish any intent to outrage the modesty of the complainant.

The alleged incident took place on March 1, 2024, during the annual University Youth Festival at the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). The complainant, a student and stage convenor, accused Dr. Baby of touching her inappropriately when she attempted to retrieve an oil lamp after the event ended. According to her, Dr. Baby forcibly grabbed her left breast despite her resistance.

However, the complaint was lodged with the university authorities on June 28, 2024, and the FIR was registered more than four months after the incident. Dr. Baby argued that the delay in filing the complaint was an afterthought and pointed out inconsistencies in the allegations.

Justice A. Badharudeen highlighted several crucial points in the judgment:

The court noted that the complainant took 127 days to report the incident, which raised doubts about the veracity of the allegations. The delay, coupled with the political backdrop surrounding the strict enforcement of university rules during the festival, suggested that the FIR may have been filed out of animosity toward the petitioner.

The court emphasized that to establish an offense under Section 354 IPC (assault with intent to outrage modesty), the prosecution must prove the accused intended to outrage the complainant’s modesty. In this case, the physical contact occurred as part of the petitioner’s attempt to enforce university guidelines, and there was no prima facie evidence of sexual intent.

Dr. Baby was acting under university instructions to ensure compliance with festival regulations, which mandated that all events conclude by 9:00 p.m. The court found that the alleged physical contact occurred during a confrontation when the complainant attempted to re-enter the auditorium after the scheduled time, and it could not be construed as sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC.

The court quashed the FIR, ruling that the complaint lacked credibility and failed to establish any criminal offense. However, it warned Dr. Baby against taking retaliatory actions that could hinder the complainant’s studies, ensuring that she could continue her education without interference.

 

Date of Decision: October 10, 2024

Dr. P.K. Baby vs. The State of Kerala

Latest Legal News