Read Time: 10 minutes

A Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and J K Maheshwari today issued notice in a plea against the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the High Court had dismissed a case of sexual harassment “Since there is no medical evidence much less corroborative, to establish offence of rape, together with the inordinate delay against especially when the lady is grown up, mature, educated and remained silent throughout nor shared it with anyone and had the audacity to level such unsubstantiated allegations after she was thrown out of the job, are matters which have adverse impact to the case of the prosecutrix."

The petitioner a teacher at Adarsh Shool Adar Kotkapura, District Faridkot had registered an FIR in September 2017 against its chairman Narender Singh Randhawa a senior citizen and his son Jasmeet Singh Randhawa.

She alleged that Randhawa who happens had marked her presence in the school October 1, 2016 onwards but kept the salary of this month with himself.

She further alleged that he misbehaved on many occasions in the school premises and on November 8, 2016 took her to a house where he forced her to consume alcohol and, thereafter, violated her, and threatened as well.

She further alleged that Narender Singh Randhawa’s son, Jasmeet Randhawa would call her and defile her repeatedly on many occasions.

On investigation, the Sessions Judge, Faridkot in 2018 framed charges against both the accused for commission of offences under Sections 354, 376, 420 IPC read with Section 3 (xii) of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The respondents challenged the same before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing a revision petition.

The High Court held that, “It is not in any manner displaced that the Petitioner is an educated lady (B.A., B.Ed. Diploma holder in computers) aged around 26 years and was working as a TGT Punjabi Teacher as well as Administrator and, therefore, is expected to be having reasonable understanding of the things and situations. It is her own stand that she was in a physical relationship with both father and the son which she continued over a long period of time.”

The Court further held that, “On various occasions are illustrative of the fact that she had volunteered into this relationship with both the petitioners at the same time.”

It also noted that “it is the own stand of the petitioner that she has been going with the accused Narinder Singh Randhawa a number of times to satisfy the male carnal desire. Furthermore during the rendezvous with the father the lady had also entrapped the son and as per her own allegations stayed with him in a house for one month where she used to be violated repeatedly even regarding these she has not raised any hue and cry for a long period of time.”

While allowing the revision, the Court noted that while there is no doubt the Courts are supposed to be sensitive to such allegations by a lady, it nevertheless has to ensure that the credibility of the allegations carry some element of truth.

The Court further held that since there is no medical evidence or corroboration to establish offence of rape together with the inordinate delay after which these insinuations have cropped up, this is a matter which goes against the petitioner especially since the lady is grown up, mature, educated and remained silent throughout and did not share her ordeal  with anyone and had the audacity to level such unsubstantiated allegations after she was thrown out of the job.

The Court further held that recently, it has become a matter of common knowledge that such allegations are levelled for a motivated cause to pressurise and coerce the opposite side to submit to illegitimate and illegal demands.

It held that the petitioner admits that she has been thrown out of her job since a long time even prior to the registration of the FIR, and that this substantiates the fact that there is every likelihood of false implication of the petitioners on certain graver charges.

This Court said that it understands that to make the job of the complainant permanent, the petitioner might have asked for money to be paid to certain officials and to which she had paid Rs 1 lac after getting the same from her father and that it cannot doubt over such a veracity at this juncture and so the fact that the petitioners by their acts might have outraged the modesty of the lady but the allegations that hover around Section Section 3(xii) of SCST Act are totally without essential elements or evidence.

The respondents appeared on caveat and took notice. The Supreme Court refused to grant any stay of the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court as the matter will come up before the trial court in March. The matter will now come up for hearing in four weeks.

Cause Title: X vs Narender Singh Randhawa & Ors