Specific sexual-harassment allegations corroborated by witnesses warrant trial, not quashing under Section 482.

Three residents of a Bengaluru residential layout complained that the petitioners had repeatedly sexually harassed and intimidated them, recorded women despite objections, and used sexually abusive language.

The complaint identified an incident on 8 May 2021 involving the complainants and a ten-year-old child.

Police registered an FIR under Sections 504, 506, 509 and 354A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), investigated the case and filed a charge sheet; the petitioners sought to quash the resulting proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The petitioners alleged that the complaint was vague, unsupported by evidence and motivated by longstanding animosity between the parties.

The complainants and the State opposed quashing, relying on the complaint and witness statements and submitting that the disputed allegations required a trial.

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint and the material collected during investigation warranted quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

2. Whether the alleged prior enmity and asserted deficiencies in the investigation established that the complaint was malicious or otherwise an abuse of process.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where the applicable principles for exercising that inherent jurisdiction are met; the Court considered the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal concerning, among other matters, proceedings manifestly attended by mala fides or instituted with an ulterior motive.

The alleged offences arose under IPC Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (words or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman) and 354A (sexual harassment), read with Section 34 (acts done in furtherance of common intention).

The Court also referred to State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal on the State’s duty to ensure a fair and impartial investigation, including protection of the rights of victims, and to High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. concerning caution in granting stays in serious cases, including offences against women and children.

The Court found that the complaint contained specific allegations of repeated sexual harassment, intimidation, video recording and sexually abusive language, including allegations relating to the incident of 8 May 2021 and the child.

The police had recorded witness statements and a complainant’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, and the charge sheet referred to CCTV information sought during the investigation; whether the witnesses had actually witnessed the incident, and whether their similar statements were reliable, were matters for trial.

The Court held that the asserted prior animosity and alleged investigative shortcomings did not justify resolving disputed facts at the quashing stage.

In light of the allegations and witness material, the Court considered the case fit for trial and declined to find that the proceedings were shown to be malicious or an abuse of process.

The criminal petition was dismissed, leaving the proceedings in C.C. No. 20704/2021 to continue.