Prior closure by Internal Local Committee and 28-day delay in complaint not enough to stop criminal investigation at the threshold, says court
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Dr. Ashwin Hebbar K seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him in a sexual harassment case, holding that closure of the matter by the Internal Local Committee (ILC) does not bar criminal proceedings and that delay in lodging the complaint cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR at the initial stage.
Justice V. Srishananda delivered the oral order in Writ Petition No. 18058 of 2022, arising from Crime No. 70/2022 registered by Shimogga Women Police Station. The petitioner, an Assistant Professor in the Department of General Surgery, had sought quashing of the complaint and FIR filed by a Junior Resident who alleged that he sexually harassed her inside his chamber.
According to the complaint, the incident allegedly occurred on July 15, 2022, between 3:30 p.m. and 3:40 p.m., when the complainant visited the petitioner’s chamber. She alleged that he made indecent physical contact and used inappropriate words. The FIR was later registered on August 12, 2022, nearly 28 days after the alleged incident.
The petitioner argued that the matter had already been placed before the Internal Local Committee, which had closed the issue, and that the subsequent criminal complaint was an afterthought intended to malign his reputation. He contended that the delay in filing the FIR supported his plea for quashing.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence and that the investigation must be allowed to proceed. The court agreed, observing that any report or closure by an Internal Local Committee cannot by itself terminate criminal proceedings where the alleged offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code is cognizable and requires police investigation.
Justice Srishananda further held that delay in lodging the complaint is not a valid ground to quash an FIR at the threshold. Such delay, the court said, may at best be used as a defence during trial if a charge sheet is filed. The court also noted that the remaining grounds raised by the petitioner were essentially matters of defence and therefore not suitable for consideration in a petition seeking quashing of the FIR.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the High Court concluded that no case was made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petition was accordingly dismissed, while keeping all defences open to the petitioner and granting him liberty to challenge any adverse report, if filed.
Bottom Line :
Quashing of FIR - Allegation of sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC - Prior closure of matter by Internal Local Committee does not by itself justify quashing of criminal proceedings - Delay of 28 days in lodging complaint is not a ground to quash FIR at inception stage and is a matter of defence during trial.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
