Delhi High Court said that false sexual harassment allegations trivialise the offence harm women empowerment

The Delhi High Court today delivered its anguish at the way cases of sexual harassment are registered “at the drop of a hat”, stating that this effectively hampers the cause of woman empowerment.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, while quashing an FIR registered against the petitioner, an Assistant Professor at the University of Delhi, for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 354A (sexual harassment)/506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC, stated that false allegations cast a doubt on the veracity of complaints filed by the real victims of sexual harassment.

"This Court expresses its anguish at how provisions such as Sections 354A/506 IPC are falsely invoked at the drop of a hat to register one's displeasure at the conduct of another individual."

The FIR alleging sexual harassment and criminal intimidation was registered against the accused in February last year on a complaint made by his neighbour. However, the accused told the court that the case was registered in an attempt to coerce and arm-twist him into withdrawing a complaint which had been filed by his wife against the complainant’s son.

The accused and the complainant in the case are neighbours who have long-pending disputes, mainly pertaining to the residential property, the petition filed before the court reveals.

Opposing the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, the police argued before the court that the accused and his wife are habitual complainants and that both of them have filed several complaints regarding the construction that has taken place in their neighbourhood.

The police also claimed that the accused was angry with the residents after he was dismissed from an Resident Welfare Association post for abusing his position.

Advocate Kumar Piyush Pushkar appearing for the petitioner submitted that FIR deserved to be quashed as the same was lodged with a mala fide intent and was an attempt to coerce and arm-twist the Petitioner into withdrawing the complaint that was lodged by his wife.

It was also submitted that more than 20 complaints were filed by the Petitioner's wife against Respondent No.2 and her family members, and that the same were pending before various authorities. Furthermore, it was argued that the impugned FIR contained nothing but bald allegations and was registered in connivance with the police as the daughter-in-law of Respondent No.2 was a part of Delhi Police.

Seeking quashing of the FIR, it was submitted that the Petitioner was a man of high stature who had been teaching as a professor at Delhi University, and that the FIR tainted his reputation and closed all the doors to future prospects for him.

The Bench finally said that a comprehensive reading of the matter revealed that the impugned FIR was only a counterblast and was solely registered to arm-twist the Petitioner and his wife into withdrawing the complaints that had been filed against Respondent No.2 and her family.

The court said the perusal of the material on record revealed that the contents of the FIR were "sketchy" and without any "specifics regarding the offences" which prima facie indicated that it arose from "bald allegations and contradictory statements".

“A reading of the Status Report also does not reveal anything about the offences being referred to in the impugned FIR. The Status Report states that the Petitioner and his wife were habitual complainants and have filed multiple complaints against the construction that would take place in the neighbourhood, and therefore, it is evident that the instant FIR was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Petitioner, and with a view to spite him and his wife due to a private and personal grudge.”

The Court therefore quashed the FIR.