Published on :
Madras: The Madras High Court recently said that a magistrate court’s order directing the police to register a first information report (FIR) for a cognisable offence such as sexual harassment will hold good even if it does not record elaborate reasons. [C Kasthuriraj v. The State].
Justice RN Manjula refused to quash a 2019 order passed by a metropolitan magistrate directing the Chennai Police to register an FIR against the managing director of a firm after a woman employee made a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace against him.
The complainant told the Court that the man was in the habit of sending her sexually coloured messages, and that every time she had to go to him for getting his signatures or showing him some documents, the man would try to come close to her, or establish physical contact. It was also alleged that after the complainant refused to yield to the accused’s demands to “adjust him,” she was dismissed from the firm.
She said that the police did not register an FIR when she lodged a complaint. Therefore, she had approached the magistrate seeking directions for registration of the FIR as per Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The accused, however, had approached the High Court claiming that the 2019 magistrate order was erroneous, and hence, should be quashed. He claimed that that the complainant was dismissed from employment as she has misappropriated the firm’s funds and falsified accounts. Thus, her sexual harassment complaint was only a counter-blast to her termination, the counsel submitted.
He further argued that the magistrate’s order was “cryptic” and it did not assign any reasons for having arrived at the conclusion that an offence was prima facie made out. He said that the order only said that the court had perused all the papers. The petitioner said that mere recording of the word ‘perusal’ in the order was not sufficient, and that reasons to suspect the commission of an offence should have been recorded.
The High Court, however, said that the complainant had provided a detailed account of the petitioner’s conduct towards her. She had also submitted the transcripts of the messages he had sent to her. In this light, the complainant’s allegations were “sufficient enough to make out a case for sexual harassment in the work place or any other related offence.” Therefore, one could not claim that the allegations made by the complainant were “bald” and that the magistrate had issued the direction “without any basis.”
“Though it is correct to state that the Court has to record the reasons basing on the allegations how it got satisfied about the prima facie case, that would benefit the petitioner only if the complaint given by the second respondent is bald and the learned Magistrate has mechanically passed an order to register an FIR without appreciating the baldness in the complaint. The order has been given with more clarity. Had it recorded the reasons as to why the Court got satisfied about the prima facie case that could have been a better order, but that cannot be the reason to set aside the order even when the complaint contains the material particulars. Hence it cannot be said that the order has been passed without application of mind,” the order stated.
While dismissing the accused’s plea, the Court said that it was too early to interfere with the magistrate’s order.
“So it is premature to come to any conclusion on the materials produced by the petitioner at this stage. Since the complaint of the second respondent discloses the cognizable offence, it is right for the learned Magistrate to order to register the FIR and investigate. On the conclusion of the investigation also if no sufficient materials are collected or the complaint appears to be a motivated one, then the petitioner is at the liberty to initiate appropriate proceeding…”
Senior Advocate A Ramesh and Advocate GR Hari appeared for the accused.
Government Advocate A Gopinath appeared for the State.
Senior Advocate T Mohan and Advocate Rajkumar Pandian appeared for the respondent complainant.
