Bombay HC refuses woman’s petition to withdraw workplace harassment case

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court (HC) recently dismissed a petition filed by a woman teacher who sought to quash a case filed by her in 2019 against physical harassment by a male teacher from the same school.

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court (HC) recently dismissed a petition filed by a woman teacher who sought to quash a case filed by her in 2019 against physical harassment by a male teacher from the same school. Observing 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 petition. 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 to curb sexual harassment of women at workplace.

For representational purpose only. (FILE)

A division bench of justice Ravindra Ghuge and justice Bhalchandra Debadwar, while hearing the petition, was informed by advocate Ashok Raut that the woman consented to quash the case and said that she had filed the complaint due to some misunderstanding which was now cleared. In view of this, Raut said, the petitioner did not wish to pursue the case anymore.

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 the woman to accompany him for a movie in the presence of other teachers. She said that when she declined the offer, the male teacher allegedly caught her hand to indicate that if she was not willing to go to the movies, he could take her by force. She also alleged that the male colleague had been following her for some time and used to wink at her too.

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 compelled to file an affidavit and tender a compromise undertaking. 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”.

The court then observed, “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.”

In light of this, the bench said as the FIR and charge sheet clearly spelt out the 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.”