Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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