Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

National President of the Indian Youth Congress, Srinivas BV, has approached the Supreme Court of India seeking relief in the FIR registered against him in Assam over allegations of sexual harassment.

Notably, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat had mentioned the Congress leader's plea before CJI DY Chandrachud on Monday seeking urgent listing.

An opposition leader is being hounded in Assam, Kamat had submitted before the bench also comprising Justices Narasimha and Pardiwala, which had agreed to list the matter on May 15.

Last week, the Gauhati High Court had refused relief to Srinivas in the sexual harassment case.  A few days ago, his anticipatory bail plea under Section 438 of CrPC had also met the same fate.

Before the High Court, Srinivas had filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeking 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 had argued before the High Court 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 cannot be used as pressure tactics. Another contention raised by Choudhary was the lack of explanation regarding the delay in lodging the FIR.

Justice Ajit Borthakur while refusing to quash the FIR had noted that offences which continued for 6 months attracted the offences under Sections 509/294 and 506 of the IPC. 

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”, high court had added.