XYZ ... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors ...Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No 1184 of 2022
The judgment pertains to a case involving an appeal arising from a judgment of a Single Judge dated 6 January 2022 at the Gwalior Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The case revolves around an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) filed by the appellant, a yoga instructor working at the Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education in Gwalior.
The appellant alleged that in March 2019, the second respondent (the Vice-Chancellor of the Institute at that time) touched her inappropriately, and when she objected, she shouted at him. Following this incident, on 14 October 2019, she lodged a complaint at the Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior. However, as the police did not take any action, she submitted another complaint on 15 October 2019 to the Superintendent of Police, City Centre, Gwalior. Dissatisfied with the lack of action, she submitted another complaint on 18 February 2020 to the Superintendent of Police and to the Police Station Gole Ka Mandir on 24 February 2020. Failing to get a response, she approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Gwalior under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. On 26 February 2020, the JMFC directed the police to file a status report, but the proceedings were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Meanwhile, the appellant also approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, raising the issue that no inquiry was being conducted into her allegations under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Protection, and Redressal) Act, 2013. Subsequently, an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was constituted, which found the allegations against the second respondent to be established, although one of the committee members submitted a dissenting note. The second respondent appealed against the ICC's findings.
On 11 November 2020, the then Vice-Chancellor of the Institute communicated to the second respondent that the DVRs containing audio-video recordings for August and September 2019 from the CCTV cameras in the Vice-Chancellor's chamber were handed over to him in a sealed packet, as per the oral directions of the second respondent. The Institute demanded the production of these recordings, which the second respondent failed to provide.
On 21 December 2020, the JMFC directed a status report from the concerned Police Station, which was filed on 8 July 2021, stating that no occurrence of any offense was found during the investigation, and departmental proceedings were conducted against the complainant due to deficiencies.
On 23 July 2021, the in-charge Vice-Chancellor again requested the second respondent to produce the DVRs, alleging that they had been handed over to him on his oral directions but were not made available to the appellant.
During the proceedings, the JMFC, by its order dated 2 November 2021, found that prima facie, the occurrence of the offence by the accused persons was shown based on the complaint filed by the appellant. However, the JMFC held that the case could be decided without collecting evidence from the police and, therefore, treated the complaint as a complaint case, granting the appellant liberty to present her statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC.
The appellant challenged this order under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court, which dismissed the application, holding that the JMFC had the discretion to direct the complainant to examine witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC instead of directing an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment, reiterates the duty of the police to register an FIR whenever a cognizable offence is made out in a complaint, as laid down in the Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1). The Court criticizes the police's inaction in this case and emphasizes that they must create an atmosphere free from fear for victims of sexual harassment or violence.
The Court also clarifies the Magistrate's powers under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, holding that the discretion to direct the police to investigate cannot be exercised arbitrarily. If the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the Magistrate must order the police investigation, especially when the accused possesses evidence, such as CCTV footage, that is essential for a fair investigation.
The Supreme Court emphasizes that courts dealing with complaints of sexual harassment and assault must treat victims sensitively and ensure their confidence in the justice system. The Court also directs the trial courts to take specific measures, such as in-camera trials, screens during testimony, and respectful cross-examination, to protect the dignity of the victims.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allows the appeal, sets aside the High Court's judgment, and directs the JMFC in Gwalior to order an investigation by the police under Section 156(3) CrPC. The investigation must be supervised by a woman officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as the case involves allegations of sexual harassment. The Court emphasizes the duty of all courts to treat victims of sexual crimes sensitively and ensure fair justice.
August 05, 2022
Cases Referred
- Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1: In this landmark case, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) by the police. The court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the information given to the police discloses a cognizable offense (offenses for which police can arrest without a warrant). If the police officer in charge of the police station refuses to register the FIR, the aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police to get the FIR registered. If even the Superintendent of Police refuses, then the person can directly file a complaint before the Magistrate, who will direct the FIR's registration.
- Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409: In this case, the accused was a public servant, and allegations of corruption were made against him. The question before the court was whether the magistrate had the power to order a police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, even though the police had already filed a closure report before the magistrate. The Supreme Court held that the power of the magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) is distinct from the police's power to investigate. If the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been conducted, he can order a fresh investigation even after the police have filed a closure report.
- Srinivas Gundluri v. SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corpn. (2010) 8 SCC 206: In this case, the complainant filed a private complaint before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC for alleged offenses of cheating and breach of trust by his employer. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint, and the High Court also rejected the revision petition. The Supreme Court held that if a Magistrate receives a complaint that discloses a cognizable offense, he can direct the police to investigate under Section 156(3). The Magistrate does not need to hold a preliminary inquiry before ordering the investigation.