Ignoring Sexual Harassment Complaints Does Not Constitute Abetment Of Offence: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that the negligence or carelessness on the part of the institutional head who ignored the sexual harassment complaints cannot be termed as abetment.

The Court also observed that merely uttering words without any intention will not constitute the act of abetment of an offence if the accused did not know that the offence was being committed or contemplated.

The Bench of Justice PM Raval held, "What is seen is that after having committed such alleged offence, it was informed to the present petitioner who did not give heed to such complaints. Thus, abetment by omission would only be punishable if such omission were an illegal omission, that is breach of a legal obligation. It is also relevant to note that mens rea is an essential element for offence of abetment. The lodging of the FIR by the informant by taking recourse of law does not aid the commission of an offence by the present petitioner, though it may amount to concealment of the acts of the accused of an offence already perpetrated. Mere negligence or carelessness on the part of the present petitioner cannot be termed as an abetment."

Advocate Rasesh Parikh appeared for the Petitioner, while APP KM Antani appeared for the Respondents

Brief Facts of the Case

An application was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash and set aside the FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 354C, 354D and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with the consequential proceedings.

The FIR revealed that pursuant to a contract between the Federation of Industry and Association and G. J. Advertising and Management Services Private Limited, the informant was entitled to recover Rs. 22,00,000/-. The Informant alleged that accused misappropriated funds, molested, verbally abused, and mentally harassed her on multiple occasions between December 2015 and July 2016, and threatened to withhold her dues unless she visited his flat. She further alleged that upon reporting these incidents, co-accused and the present petitioner failed to act, with the petitioner dismissing her complaints and stating that she had to succumb to such demands to progress in business.

Contentions of the Parties

The Petitioner submitted that except for the bare allegation that the present petitioner laughed away to what was informed to the petitioner herein, there are no allegations with regard to outraging the modesty of the informant, inasmuch as, the only allegations in the FIR and from the papers of the charge-sheet are to the effect that the present petitioner did not give heed to what was stated by the informant and asked her to accept such type of demands if she wants to grow and develop in business.

The Informant/Respondent submitted that the petitioner, despite being head of the said institution, had never acted on the complaints and had completely failed to perform his duties, and, on the contrary, pressurized the informant to compromise with the illegal demands of the Secretary.

Observations/Findings of the Court

The Court noted that there was no direct overt act attributed to the present petitioner in any of the offences attracting provisions of Sections 354, 354A, 354C or 354D of the IPC.

It was observed, "Thus, from reading of the aforesaid Section, what is clear is that for making the present petitioner liable for abetment by intentional aiding by an act or illegal omission, or instigation, or any conspiracy, or illegal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy, in order to facilitate the commission of the act of offence, the presence of the abettor either before the commission of the crime or offence, for facilitating commission of the offence, or at the time of commission of an act constituting the offence is necessary for making out an offence of abetment. Thus, the intention should be to aid the commission of a crime."

The Court added that the lodging of the FIR by the informant by taking recourse to law does not aid the commission of an offence by the petitioner, though it may amount to concealment of the acts of the accused of an offence already perpetrated.

"Merely, by uttering the words that will have to succumb to such polluted demands if she wants to grow in the business, without there being any intention, will not make the act of abetment of an offence if the petitioner did not know that the offence was being committed or contemplated. What is seen is that after having committed such alleged offence, it was informed to the present petitioner who did not give heed to such complaints. Thus, abetment by omission would only be punishable if such omission were an illegal omission, that is breach of a legal obligation. It is also relevant to note that mens rea is an essential element for offence of abetment.", it observed.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings were quashed against the Petitioner.

Cause Title: XXXX v. YYYY & Ors. [Neutral Citation:2026:GUJHC:55473]

Click here to read/download the Judgment