Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 877 (GAU)

TATA TELESERVICES LTD v. MANISH KASHYAP

2014-09-16

K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2014
ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. N Dutta, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. PD Nair, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent. 2. The petitioners are the accused against whom summons are issued in respect of commission of offence under Sections 499/500 IPC. The respondent is the complainant. The facts reveal that the complainant was an employee of Tata Teleservices Ltd., who is the petitioner No.1. The petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are the employees of the petitioner No.1 and the co-accused. It is alleged that the complainant was framed with false allegation of sexual harassment of the women employees and that without holding an enquiry orally it was told to several people that the complainant is guilty of committing sexual harassment of his female employees and that his guilt has been proved. The complainant was also told that no severe punishment would be imposed on him and he was transferred to Aizawl Unit from Jorhat. 3. The gist of the complaint discloses that there was no enquiry at all. No opportunity was given to him to prove his innocence. False documents have been concocted to show that an enquiry was conducted and that the complainant had admitted his guilt. The complainant submits that on account of false accusation of sexual harassment his image in the society is lowered and the false accusation and admission of guilt was also informed to several employees. The complainant filed a private complaint before the Magistrate at Guwahati about one year after the incident. 4. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and one witness to speak about the oral publication. The Magistrate on the basis of the said material issued summons. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order has filed this petition for quashing. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that there was a complaint of sexual harassment of co-employee against the respondent/complainant. The sexual harassment committee constituted by the Management consisting of the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 enquired into the matter. The complainant was summoned. He confessed and admitted misbehavior with the female staff and stated that he had done the said act unintentionally and unknowingly and promised that he would be careful in future. 6. The sexual harassment committee constituted by the Management consisting of the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 enquired into the matter. The complainant was summoned. He confessed and admitted misbehavior with the female staff and stated that he had done the said act unintentionally and unknowingly and promised that he would be careful in future. 6. In view of the said submission no further enquiry was held and no punishment was imposed nor prosecution under Section 354 Cr.P.C., was contemplated. However, the complainant was given the chance to reform himself and the sexual harassment committee recommended his transfer to new location to Aizawl from Jorhat and closed the case. The said document is produced by the petitioners at Annexure-4. The complainant has also produced the said document at Annexure-2 along with his complaint. It is seen from Annexure-4 that the complainant has signed both the pages of the enquiry report of the sexual harassment committee. Annexure-4 contends acknowledgment of the receipt of the said report by the complainant with his signature. 7. The counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the said acknowledgment of the receipt of the report would belie the contention of the complainant that there was no enquiry conducted and that there was false information communicated to people that the allegation of sexual harassment on the part of the complainant is proved. The endorsement and signature of the complainant at Annexure-5 would clinchingly establish that he was aware of the contention and the report was communicated to him. 8. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents admits that he did endorsed on the said document but he was threatened to put his signature on the documents on a subsequent date and because of the threat conveyed he had to put his signature. The counsel also refers to the averments in his complaint in paragraph 16 where he makes the specific mention that his signature and endorsement is made on a subsequent date. It is submitted that the fact of receipt of the report on the part of the complainant is a question of fact which has to be gone into trial and that cannot be a basis for quashing the complaint. 9. It is submitted that the fact of receipt of the report on the part of the complainant is a question of fact which has to be gone into trial and that cannot be a basis for quashing the complaint. 9. Upon stern scrutiny of the rival contentions, it is to be seen that Annexure 4 which is a document evidently admitted by the complainant bears his signature and also indicates the receipt of the said document on his part. It is the contention of the complainant that he had made that endorsement on a subsequent date and not on the date of enquiry. The complainant is an educated man nothing had prevented him to put the date of the endorsement and his signature. The contents of the document clearly disclose that an enquiry was held and the complainant did appear before the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 who are the enquiring authorities. The contents of the document show that the complainant admitted his guilt. 10. It is the contention of the complainant that he put his signature on a different date under voidable circumstances. The complainant never disclose as to what are the voidable circumstances under which he was forced to sign and there is no material to substantiate or corroborate that he had to put his signature under coercive circumstances. Except the self serving say of the complainant there is no other corroborative material to support his contention. 11. In respect of publication of the proceedings are concerned the complainant examined one witness. The sworn statement of the said witness appears to be vague. The said witness claims that he came to know from the complainant that he has been falsely accused and transferred. The witness says that he met petitioner No.3 and that the said petitioner No.3 told him that the complainant has been found guilty of sexual harassment and he has been transferred to Aizawl. The veracity of the version of the said witness appears to be doubtful. The say of the witness that the petitioner No.3 divulged the information about the guilt of sexual harassment by the complainant becomes doubtful to be believed. Respondent is an ex-employee and under what circumstances and for what reason the petitioner No.3 had to disclose that information relating to official affairs of the company is not explicit from the sworn statement of the said witness. Respondent is an ex-employee and under what circumstances and for what reason the petitioner No.3 had to disclose that information relating to official affairs of the company is not explicit from the sworn statement of the said witness. Therefore, it becomes difficult to believe his version that the petitioner No.3 gave the said information to the witness attributing commission of offence of defamation. It is mandatory on the part of the employees that if any complaint of sexual harassment of a woman employee is made, a committee should be constituted to inquire into such complaints and to take necessary disciplinary action against the erring employees. The signature on the inquiry report corroborates the petitioner’s version that an inquiry was held against him. 12. It is further stated that a civil suit is also filed seeking damages for the acts of defamation committed by all the petitioners. Infact if the allegations in the complaint and sworn statement, if strictly analyzed, the allegation of spreading information orally is directed only against petitioner No.3. The petitioner No.1 being a company cannot be attributed of committing the offence of defamation. The wild allegation made by the complainant against the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are without any basis would only suggest an intention of instituting baseless prosecution. 13. The provision of exception 7, 8 and 9 of Section 499 IPC, prima facie, apply and justify the enquiry held as born out in Annexure-5. The contents of Annexure-5 are not, per se, or, prima facie, shown to be as farce or untenable. The signature of the complainant in the enquiry report corroborates the petitioners’ version that a bona fide enquiry was held. In view of the exceptions 7, 8 and 9 of the provisions of Section 499 IPC, there appears to be no case made out against the petitioners. Accordingly the petition is allowed. Proceedings stand quashed.