MADHUSHREE DATTA VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4884 OF 2024:

DATE: 24/01/2025

BENCH: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

FACTS:

The present case was a direct result of a compliant lodge by the second complainant. The second complainant was a lady employed at the company as Technical System Analyst in which the appellant was the Human Resource Manager. The complaint with was lodge on 26/10/2013, and alleged that she was a victim of an ongoing harassment. She claimed that she was coerced into resigning under duress, with the threat of immediate termination if she did not comply. Specifically, the complainant alleged that on October 25, 2013 the first accused, demanded that the complainant resign under threat of immediate dismissal. The first accused allegedly instructed the complainant not to return to work and confiscated her personal belongings, including her laptop, bag, wallet, money, and credit cards. The complainant claimed the laptop contained proprietary intellectual property, including codes and work she had created. She also alleged that the management ordered her removal, with security personnel escorting her out and engaging in physical harassment, assault, and issuing threats.

On 25/10/13, the complainant formally filed a complaint seeking justice and after two months a FIR was issued accusing the appellant with crimes under sections 323, 504, 506, 509, 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR states that the appellant subjected the complainant to both physical and mental torture. They allegedly confiscated the laptop issued to the complainant and forcibly evicted her from the Company. The charge sheet which was filed on 24/04/14 conformed to the above mentioned charges and additionally it also alleges that the appellants were accused of scolding the complainant in “filthy language” and forcibly terminating her employment. Furthermore, with the assistance of security personnel, the appellants are said to have had the complainant removed from the premises of the Company. This led the appellants to approach the High Court and it concluded that, prima facie, they meet the necessary elements to constitute the offences attributed to the appellants. Thus, the appellants approached this court. 

ISSUES:

The issue at hand is whether, based on the materials on record, the prima facie ingredients of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 of the IPC are made out, even if the allegations are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, and whether the charge sheet and the related criminal proceedings against the appellants are liable to be quashed.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Court decided that based on the material on record the prima facie ingredients of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509 and 511 of IPC were absent. The Court also judged the charge sheet and the related criminal proceeding against the appellant are liable to be quashed.

The Court came to this conclusion by examining the alleged charges in detail and ascertaining whether the ingredients to constitute such crimes where present. Firstly, the Court examined Section 323. The Court was to the opinion that to determine the applicability of provisions of section 323, it should be read with Sections 319 and 321. In-order to constitute the crime of ‘hurt’, there must be a voluntary act of causing hurt, i.e., bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, to another person. Furthermore, there is no mention of any voluntary act of bodily harm caused by the appellants in the complaint filed or the allegations made. So, the Court concluded that there is no prima facie suggestion to approve of Section 323. Secondly, the Court examined the provisions under Section 504 and 509. Question that was needed to be answered was whether the mention of use of filthy language constitutes crimes under the aforementioned sections. The Court identified that, there was no mention of any specific words or gesture that would attract the provisions of section 504 and 509. Thus, establishing there is no prima facie crime under those provisions. Thirdly, the Court needed to determine whether the appellant committed crimes under Section 506. While examining the records the Court found that the complainant has not specifically attributed any statements which would amount to criminal intimidation and thus will not prima facie attract the provisions of Section 506 of IPC.

Moreover, while examining the intricacies of the present case the Court inferred that, the complainant is primarily alleging illegal termination, which constitutes a civil dispute, rather than criminal intimidation. It is also the appellants' case, which has not been disputed by the complainant, that the complainant has filed a reference before the labour court challenging her termination and seeking reinstatement along with back wages. The Court was of the view that none of the ingredients of Sections 323, 504, 506, and 509 of the IPC is present, even if they are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety. Thus, making the charge under Section 511 invalid. The Court is of the opinion that there are certain facts that strongly suggest that the criminal proceedings were initiated by the complainant against the appellants with mala fide intentions, specifically to wreak vengeance, cause harm, or coerce a settlement. The discrepancies and variations outlined above, suggest a deliberate attempt to reclassify the nature of the proceedings from non-cognizable to cognizable or to transform a civil dispute into a criminal matter, potentially aimed at pressurizing the appellants into settling the dispute with the complainant. By in-calculating all of the facts mentioned above, the Court under the authority of Section 482 of CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant and sustained the appeal.

ANLYSIS:

The Apex court during the hearings the case found out that the second respondent and the complainant in the earlier case had a malicious intention to take vengeance on the appellant and force their hand into reinstating her job or for a settlement. This was identified by the Court while examining whether the alleged charges were applicable in this case. The Court found out that none of the ingredients required for the alleged charges were present. This led the Court to identify that the complainant had mustered up a false case to seek revenge. Furthermore, the existence of a case on the same matter in the labour also gives credence to this assessment. So, Court came to the apt conclusion.