Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Court explained that POSH Act does not expressly prohibit the Appellate Authority to pass an interim order and once the appellate authority has the power to set aside impugned proceedings, it can be construed that the appellate authority also has implied power to consider passing of interim order of stay as well.
Before exercising the power under Section 482 of CrPC, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime besides observing and holding that heinous and serious offences could not be quashed even though a victim or victim’s family and the offender had settled.
Madras High Court clarified that to constitute an offence under Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC, the accused must make unwelcome physical contact and advances, specifically involving explicit sexual overtures.
Kerala High Court noted that accused 2 had abused and thrashed the minor victim and concluded that the offense falls under Section 323 of IPC in conjunction with Section 34 IPC.
Kerala High Court said that there was no undue delay in filing the FIR, as the relationship was predicated on the promise of marriage
The Court directed the company’s Internal Complaints Committee to hold an enquiry into the complaint of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of PoSH Act, 2013 and complete the process as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of 90 days.
The Court strictly observed that the offence against the petitioner is a shade more than horrendous. “More than horrendous, I say, for the reason that the petitioner is a teacher (…) If this cannot become a crime, it is not understandable as to what else can be”.
It was said that since all sub-sections of Section 354A of IPC start with the words ‘a man’, a female accused would not be covered under this Section.
The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and, therefore, the issue of limitation could not have been decided by the local committee at the threshold stage without evidence.
The Court stated that only because respondent is police personnel, it cannot be a ground to hold him guilty without conducting the statutorily prescribed departmental enquiry and that too in a matter, where the complainant and the witnesses are also police personnel.
GNLU was directed to disclose the measures taken by the ICC to ensure that the complaints lodged before the Committee reach them without any manual intervention or external pressure.
“The medical board has opined that the petitioner required regular medical care and supervision and the support of the family members for his compliance to the medical treatment.”
Kerala High Court scrutinized the definition of ‘sexual assault’ and expressed that the same has to be construed as sexual offence against a victim, including sexual harassment.
“Looking to the nature and gravity of the offences and owing to the close relationship between the accused and the complainant, the Uttaranchal High Court exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, quashed the FIR.”
“During the said period of trial, there is no occasion for the applicant to keep him languishing behind the bars, as it would serve no purpose especially in view of the aforesaid and as it is a trite law that no person is presumed guilty until proven otherwise.”
Delhi High Court observed that what ultimately turned decisive was a voluntary acknowledgment by the appellant-professor of his acts of indiscretion in getting attracted by the charms of a young female student.
Delhi Court observed that it is crucial for Delhi Commission for Women to focus on substantive actions rather than superficial gestures just for the sake of publicity and bringing the name in newspaper or to find fault in the other institution when equal responsibility lies with them also.
The Court strictly observed that in India, Gurus/teachers are considered akin to God and the Government Teacher’s perverse acts have created fear in the minds of the parents of minor girls students.
Kerala High Court observed that “The materials placed by the prosecution prima facie disclosed the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offences.”
The Supreme Court attributed the reluctance on the part of victims of Sexual Harassment at workplace to report the misconduct to, (i) uncertainty about who to approach under the Act for redressal of their grievance; and (ii) lack of confidence in the process and its outcome.