Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court set aside an order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Hathras, which had dismissed a sexual assault complaint filed by a woman against her colleague.

The High Court found that the Magistrate’s initial decision to deny the complaint, based on a preliminary police inquiry, was not in alignment with established legal precedents, particularly in cases involving allegations of sexual violence.

The case originated when the woman, a teacher in Hathras, filed a complaint stating that on June 24, 2022, while on her way to school, she was accosted by the headmaster of a nearby school. According to her account, the accused verbally harassed her, acted inappropriately, and attempted to grope her. Her husband reportedly arrived at the scene in response to her cries, at which point the accused fled, allegedly issuing threats. Following unsuccessful attempts to register a report with the local police, she sought the court’s intervention under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), requesting an order for police investigation.

However, the CJM dismissed her application, relying on a police report that suggested the complaint was rooted in personal animosity rather than any cognizable offense. The Magistrate concluded that the woman’s allegations were intended to exert undue pressure on the accused, a decision the high court deemed contrary to legal standards for handling such cases. 

The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra emphasized that in cases alleging sexual misconduct, courts should generally refrain from directing a preliminary inquiry before registering a First Information Report (FIR).

Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in XYZ vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (reported in 2022 (0) SC 740) where it was held that a magistrate is required to direct a police investigation when addressing an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, particularly when a cognizable offence, such as sexual offences, is prima facie established.

It further cited Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P. (2015 (6) SCC 287), where the Supreme Court expressed need of directing a preliminary investigation by a magistrate while dealing with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., mainly in the cases which are enumerated in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1) which include: a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes b) Commercial offences c) Medical negligence cases d) Corruption cases e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution.

Court, however, opined that in the present case, in which the woman had levelled specific allegations of sexual assault and molestation against the accused, directing preliminary investigation to police into allegations made by the victim in application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and placing reliance on police report submitted in favour of the proposed accused was neither desirable nor lawful.

Court held that in the case at hand, the approach of the magistrate was not in consonance with the recent pronouncements of Apex Court in ‘XYZ’ case and accordingly, it set aside the CJM’s order.

Court ordered a fresh hearing for the woman’s complaint. It directed that her application be reconsidered in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Case Title: xyz  v. State of U.P. and Another