Karnataka HC Quashes Workplace Sexual Harassment FIR Against Manager, Citing Omnibus Allegations Without Specific Dates

The complainant and the petitioner worked for the same company, where the petitioner was her Reporting Manager. She alleged workplace harassment, including abusive language, unwanted physical contact, requests to go on long drives and stay at his house, obscene messages, and romantic songs played in a company cab.

Following an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) inquiry under the PoSH Act, the complainant alleged that the inquiry had not been properly conducted and lodged a police complaint invoking Section 354 IPC. The petitioner sought, under Section 482 CrPC, to quash the complaint and the FIR registered as Crime No. 261/2019, contending that the allegations were general and the ICC had found no substantiation.

The State opposed quashing, submitting that the complaint contained allegations requiring investigation.

The Court considered Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, under which the complaint invoked criminal liability for assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.

The Court also considered the PoSH Act, 2013, under which the company had constituted an ICC. It noted that the ICC’s findings did not, by themselves, preclude criminal proceedings; the complaint nevertheless had to disclose a prima facie case on its own terms. No precedent was cited.

The Court reviewed the complaint and found that, although it referred to abusive language, touching, messages, and other conduct, it did not specify when the alleged incidents occurred and made the allegations in general terms.

It also considered the ICC report, which found no material substantiating sexual harassment, while expressly recognizing that the report did not bar separate criminal proceedings under Section 354 IPC. On the complaint’s contents, the Court concluded that no prima facie case was made out and that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.

It allowed the petition and quashed the complaint dated 10 June 2019 and the FIR registered in Crime No. 261/2019 against the petitioner.