Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Indian Youth Congress chief Srinivas BV’s plea to secure relief in sexual harassment case has been rejected by Gauhati High Court. A few days ago, his anticipatory bail plea under Section 438 of CrPC had also met the same fate.

The current petition was filed under Section 482 of CrPC. Srinivas wanted the high court to quash the whole FIR altogether. The FIR has been filed by former Assam Youth Congress president Angkita Dutta. Dutta has alleged that over the course of six months, Srinivas repeatedly harassed and abused her. He allegedly made disparaging remarks, used vulgar language, and threatened Dutta with punishment if she reported his behaviour to senior party leadership. Additionally, Srinivas has also been accused of heckling Dutta in a Congress session held at Raipur in February this year.

Consequently, Dutta filed an FIR for harming modesty, criminal restraint, obscenity and criminal intimidation at Dispur police station.  Charges include 509, 294, 341, 352,  354, 354A (iv), 506 of the IPC read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Appearing for Srinivas, Senior Advocate K.N. Choudhary argued that the alleged heckling happened in Raipur and hence the FIR in Dispur was without Jurisdiction. He also submitted that there was a lack of clarity in the FIR. According to Choudhary, the FIR did not clarify the manner and place at which alleged outraging comments were made. He termed allegations as vague, fabricated and afterthought.

Contending that allegations were a result of political vendetta, Choudhary said that criminal proceedings can not be used as pressure tactics.

Another contention raised by Choudhary was the lack of explanation regarding the delay in lodging the FIR.

Advocate General D. Saikia opposed it by saying that the law does not prescribe any limitation period for lodging FIR. He also submitted that the Apex Court has settled that examining the correctness or otherwise veracity of the allegations is the subject matter of trial. Referring to allegations of political vendetta by Srinivas, Saikia argued that it should be the reason behind the dismissal of the petition in question.

The bench of Justice Ajit Borthakur noted that offences which continued for 6 months attracted the offences under Sections 509/294 and 506 of the IPC. He held that charges under 352/354/354A (iv) of the IPC were definitely apt for this case as the victim was allegedly heckled and threatened. Moreover, Dutta was restrained to not go out of Assam, which amounted to the offence of criminal restraint under Section 341 of IPC, the judge opined. 

Regarding the applicability of Section 67 of IT Act, Justice Ajit Borthakur held that Dutta had received threats through electronic means, therefore the Section was applicable here. He further added that the applicability of Section 67 in view of Section 77 of the said Act could only be considered during the trial.

Clearing the air around jurisdiction, the high court said that Sections 177 and 178 of CrPC are commonly used in determining the place for conducting an inquiry or trial following a police investigation. “So, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that Dispur P.S. has jurisdiction to investigate into the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner at different places viz. at Guwahati and outside of it, ” it added.

The high court also addressed the issue of delay raised by Srinivas. It said that the alleged offence kept going on for 6 months at different places, namely Raipur and Guwahati, therefore, it could not be said that the FIR registered on 19 April 2023 was after an inordinate delay.

Lastly, the high court held that there was no need for its intervention in the FIR in question. The petition for quashing the FIR was, accordingly, dismissed.