“Not Bound By Closure Report By Police”: Delhi HC Upholds Summons Issued By Magistrate In Workplace Sexual Harassment Case
The Court highlighted that despite stringent laws aimed at ensuring safe workplaces, women continue to face harassment, especially in situations involving power dynamics.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a Magistrate is not bound by a closure report filed by the police and is empowered to independently assess the material collected to take cognizance of offences. The Court reaffirmed that even if the Investigating Officer files a closure report, the Magistrate can rely on the evidence to form an independent opinion.
The High Court was hearing a petition challenging the summoning order issued in a case arising out of allegations of sexual harassment at workplaces. Despite the Investigating Officer filing two closure reports citing a lack of corroboration, the Magistrate issued summons under Sections 354A and 509 IPC, which was later upheld by the Sessions Court in revision.
A Bench comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while highlighting that education or a high government position offers no protection to a woman from being subjected to sexual harassment, observed that “…“a Magistrate can disagree with the police report and take cognizance and issue process and summons to the accused. Thus, the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to ignore the opinion expressed by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind."
Advocate Mayank Tripathi appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Rahul Tyagi, ASC, with Advocates Danish Aftab Chowdhury and Suhail Malik represented the respondents.
Background
The complainant, a government officer, had complained of sexual harassment at her workplace, initially before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act and subsequently before the police, leading to registration of an FIR.
The ICC had exonerated the accused. After investigation, the police filed a closure report, and later a supplementary closure report, both concluding that no case was made out. The complainant, challenging the findings of the ICC and the police, approached the Metropolitan Magistrate.
The Magistrate, disagreeing with the closure report, found that the complainant’s statement disclosed specific allegations of sexually coloured remarks and inappropriate conduct and issued summons. The order was upheld by the Sessions Court. The accused then approached the High Court.
Court’s Observations
On Harassment Faced By Women At Workplace
The High Court emphatically highlighted the continuing problem of sexual harassment at workplaces despite the enactment of protective legislation. It noted that “This case is a reflection of Society, where despite stringent legislation and repeated lamentation about gender neutrality and equality to provide safe work environment; unfortunately the psychology and mindset of the men in Work Place where sexual harassment continues to haunt the women at Work Place, especially when it involves “Power Dynamics”, has remained unchanged. The education or high Government position, is no protection to a woman from being subjected to sexual harassment.”
Further, the Court dealt with the two central questions arising in the case.
Whether courts are bound by closure reports filed by the police
The Court held that a Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions of the Investigating Officer and may independently assess the investigation material.
Relying on precedents such as Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985) and Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (2014), the Court observed that “…even though the State had filed the closure Report twice, the learned M.M was well within his powers to appreciate the investigations done and the evidence collected to form and independent opinion to take the cognizance Report, irrespective of the Closure Report which got filed by the I.O in the aforesaid FIR.”
Implications of an ICC inquiry report under the POSH Act
The petitioner had contended that the ICC had exonerated him and, therefore, no criminal proceedings should continue. The Court, however, held that departmental or internal inquiries and criminal proceedings serve distinct purposes and apply different standards of proof.
While rejecting this contention raised by the petitioner, the Court held that “while criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of a duty that the offender owes to the Society, Departmental Enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service.”
Furthermore, stressing that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is not the same as that in criminal trials, the court observed that “…merely because the Petitioner has been exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry, cannot be the sole basis for discharging him in the present FIR.”
Besides answering these questions, the Court also took into account the observations made by the Magistrate that the complainant had made specific and clear allegations of sexually coloured remarks and inappropriate conduct, which were supported by statements recorded during the investigation.
The High Court further reiterated that corroboration is not mandatory and the sole testimony of the complainant, if credible, can be sufficient to proceed and even to sustain conviction.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the Magistrate had rightly exercised his jurisdiction by taking cognizance despite closure reports filed by the police. Dismissing the petition, the Court upheld the orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court issuing summons and process against the accused.
Cause Title: Asif Hamid Khan v. State & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7773)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Mayank Tripathi
Respondents: Advocate Rahul Tyagi, ASC, Advocates Danish Aftab Chowdhury and Suhail Malik