Stating that the petition seemed to be filed by her under pressure and an attempt was being made to sweep the dirt under the carpet, the court rejected the plea
Bombay High Court.
Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench recently dismissed a petition filed by a woman teacher, seeking quashing of a physical harassment case filed by her against a colleague in 2019.
ADVERTISEMENT
Stating that the petition seemed to be filed by her under pressure and an attempt was being made to sweep the dirt under the carpet, the court rejected the plea. It further held that the school management should have resolved the issue by adopting the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the Vishaka judgment, stated a report in Hindustan Times.
A division bench of justices Ravindra Ghuge and Bhalchandra Debadwar, while hearing the petition, was told by advocate Ashok Raut that the woman consented to quash the case and that she had filed the complaint due to some misunderstanding which was now cleared.
Based on her complaint, the first information report (FIR) was registered on January 16, 2019 at Chawani police station. The woman had alleged that the male teacher had allegedly asked her to accompany him for a movie in the presence of other teachers. She had said that when she declined, he caught her hand to indicate that if she was not willing to go, he could take her by force. She also alleged that the he used to follow her and wink at her.
While noting the discomfiture of advocate SP Koli, who represented the woman and submitted her affidavit which consented to quashing of the FIR, the court observed that the informant may have been pressured to file an affidavit. The bench referred to the part of the affidavit which stated “she assures that in future she will not file a criminal complaint against the applicant”.
“This speaks volumes about the pressure possibly exerted on her, either by the applicant or the educational institution. In fact, we would have appreciated if the educational institution would have taken recourse to Vishaka Committee recommendations and Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 so as to initiate action against him,” stated the bench.
The court further said that as the FIR and chargesheet clearly stated offending acts of the male teacher, it was not willing to accept the compromise. “We find it unconscionable to accept such compromise as it would surely not be in the interest of justice and would be counter-productive.”
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
