S.NAGARAJAN Vs. NADOJA DR. MAHESH JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.76/2020 pending on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hangal for the offences punishable under Ss. 499 and 500 read with Sec. 34 and 120-B of IPC.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the respondent- complainant by filing a private complaint is that accused No.1 had written a complaint dtd. 23/1/2015 of sexual harassment at work place of Director General, Dooradarshan and the same was forwarded to Prime Minister of India, Minister I & B, State Minister I & B, Chairman-Prasar Bharati, CEO-Prasar Bharati, Chairperson NCW and Chairperson, Internal Complaints Committee with an intention to spoil the image of the respondent and also filed complaint of sexual harassment before Tilak Marg Police Station on 4/3/2015. As a result, the complainant got deprived his promotion to the post of the Director General.

(3.) It is contended in the complaint making an allegation against the accused Nos.3 and 4 that they are in conspiracy with the accused No.1 for giving information regarding such allegations to media and because of which the said news was publicized in the newspaper as contended in Paragraph Nos.22 and 23 of the complaint. It is also alleged against the petitioners that, in order to support the accused No.1, gave false statement as witness before the Enquiry Authorities and Investigating Officers. Hence, filed the complaint against them. The only allegation against the accused No.4 is that he wrote an email asking authorities to take action against the complainant on the complaint of sexual harassment filed by the accused No.1 against the complainant and posted the copy of said email to friends, well wishers and relatives. The Trial Court, by its order dtd. 5/11/2016, dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant against the accused Nos.2, 5 to 7 on the ground that no prima facie material to proceed against the above accused for taking cognizance. However, proceeded to register criminal case against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. It is also contended that accused No.1 and complainant had compromised the matter for settling the dispute between themselves and permitted the complainant to withdraw the complaint filed against the accused No.1.