Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

While quashing the FIRs filed by an Allahabad University assistant professor against her three senior colleagues, the Allahabad High Court imposed a fine of Rs 15 lakhs on her. 

The court held that the cases were frivolous and that the reputation and public image of the accused persons, who were professors and people with high morals and reputations, had been tarnished.

The court in separate orders in the three petitions quashed the proceedings and imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on the assistant professor in each case. 

The assistant professor had accused her colleagues of various offences including voyeurism and criminal intimidation. Allegations were also made of the offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

"This is a case where a Professor had to pay a very heavy price for asking an Assistant Professor to take classes and teach properly. He was made an accused in a frivolous and malicious criminal case and had to face trial for last eight years, and further had to face humiliation, stigma, for no fault of his own, and on the other hand, the complainant, by misusing the provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as ‘the S.C./S.T. Act’), had been using as a weapon and threatened the other seniors from taking any action against her," Justice Prashant Kumar noted in one of the orders. 

The orders were passed in the pleas filed under Section 482 CrPC by the accused professors. 

Against her seniors, the assistant professional had made complaints within the University administration which were dealt with in detail by the Committee for Complaints Against Sexual Harassment. In its exhaustive report concerning the allegations, the committee had found that the complaints were an attempt to malign the high reputation and impeccable image of the concerned Professors.

However, in the criminal cases, the charge-sheets against the accused professors were filed under Sections 354C, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act upon which the trial court took cognizance and issued summons.

Before the high court, the accused professors argued that the FIRs in question were tainted with malafides. The counsel representing the accused professors further contended that none of the offences, as alleged against them, were made out, even if the allegations made in the FIR were taken to be true.

In its decision, the high court opined that entire criminal proceedings were manifestly attended with malafides and the same had been carried out just to wreak vengeance against the accused professors. 

"The entire proceedings initiated by her was with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance with a view to spite the applicant for the personal grudge, which she had against him," the single judge bench noted in one of the orders. 

Therefore, referring to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others pertaining to the inherent powers granted to the high court under Section 482 CrPC, the bench held that the matter at hand was squarely covered by Guidelines (1), (3) and (7). 

"The complainant, whenever she had been admonished by her seniors, she would go and file complaints in all possible forum to wreak vengeance with ulterior motive," it underscored. 

Court emphasised that it was hard to believe that all the three accused Professors, who took over as the Head of Department, had a personal grudge against her and were harassing her.

"Which Head of Department in his senses would do that, specially when it is known to everyone that O.P. no.2 is in a habit of lodging complaints, and she will not even think twice before using the S.C./S.T. Act as a weapon to enmesh them in criminal cases," the bench said. 

Therefore, while passing the order in favour of the accused professors, court held that "if such kind of activities are not nipped in the bud, it will set a precedent where other members of the S.C. or the S.T. community will open start insubordination and the Head of Department will not be in a position to do anything, and when warned or admonished, cases under the S.C./S.T. will be foisted against them".

Case Title: Prof. Prahlad Kumar v. State of U.P. and another and two other matters