Delhi High Court | Magistrate Not Bound by Closure Report in Sexual Harassment Case | Departmental Exoneration No Bar to Trial Under Sections 354A, 509 IPC
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, quoting Shakespeare to highlight the lived experiences of women, observed that despite stringent law and repeated emphasis on gender neutrality and equality, sexual harassment continues to affect women in workplaces, particularly where “power dynamics” are involved. The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash orders summoning the petitioner in a case under Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. It held that a Magistrate is not bound to accept police closure reports and may independently take cognizance on the basis of evidence on record.
The dispute originated in December 2014 when a female officer belonging to the Kashmir Administrative Services lodged a complaint against her superior officer, alleging sexual harassment at the workplace. The complaint was filed on 31 December 2014 with the Department of Hospitality and Protocol, Government of Jammu and Kashmir. It was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The Committee conducted an enquiry under Government Order No. 1312-GAD of 2013 read with Government Order No. 38-GAD of 2015. After examining witnesses, the Committee submitted a report on 11 February 2015, observing inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and concluding that the allegations against the accused officer were not established
.
Meanwhile, on 6 January 2015, the complainant had also approached the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. This led to the registration of FIR No. 16/2015 on 10 February 2015 under Sections 354A, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigations were carried out, and on 21 May 2016 the police filed a closure report, stating that the complaint appeared motivated and lacked supporting evidence. The complainant filed a protest petition, leading to further investigation as directed by the Magistrate on 21 November 2016.
The supplementary closure report again concluded that no corroborative evidence existed beyond the complainant’s own statement. Witnesses examined by the police, including officials and staff members, did not support her version. Text messages retrieved from the forensic laboratory indicated cordial communication between the complainant and the accused, with no indication of misbehaviour.
Despite these reports, on 21 August 2017 the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), New Delhi, held that the statement of the complainant was clear and categorical. The Magistrate observed that corroboration was not a legal necessity at the stage of summoning unless the statement was incoherent, and took cognizance under Sections 354A and 509 IPC. Summons were issued to the accused.
A criminal revision was filed against the summoning order. On 4 September 2018, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision, noting that certain witnesses had supported the complainant’s version under Section 161 CrPC. The Court held that departmental and criminal proceedings operate in distinct spheres and observed that there was no illegality in the Magistrate’s order.
The petitioner then approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC. He argued that the Internal Complaints Committee report and the two closure reports conclusively negated the allegations. It was submitted that the complaint had been motivated by fear of administrative transfer and that the complainant had continued cordial relations with him, as shown by her messages. The petitioner also contended that the Magistrate had selectively relied on witness statements, disregarding others, and had acted beyond jurisdiction in summoning him.
The State opposed the petition and affirmed that the complainant’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, together with corroborative statements from certain colleagues, made out a prima facie case. It was argued that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation and that departmental findings could not override criminal liability. The complainant’s counsel also submitted that departmental proceedings had been influenced by the petitioner’s official position and that the exoneration report could not be binding on criminal prosecution
Referring to Bhagwat Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985) 2 SCC 537, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna recorded: “The report may on the other hand state that, in the opinion of the police, no offence appears to have been committed and where such a report has been made, the Magistrate again has an option to adopt one of three courses: (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding or (2) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (3) he may direct further investigation.”
Quoting Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (2014) 3 SCC 306, the Court observed: “In the event the Magistrate disagrees with the police report, he has two choices. He may act on the basis of a protest petition that may be filed, or he may, while disagreeing with the police report, issue process and summon the accused.” It further relied on Chandra Babu v. State (2015) 8 SCC 774, stating that the Magistrate can disregard the police opinion and independently apply his mind to the facts of the investigation
Referring to Depot Manager, APSRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miyan (1997) 2 SCC 699, it stated: “Departmental proceedings are distinctly different from the purpose behind prosecution of offenders for commission of an offence by them. 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.”
It cited State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (1996) 6 SCC 417, observing: “The approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different… The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different.”
Turning to the allegations, the Court reproduced parts of the complainant’s statements noted by the Magistrate: “Asking ‘what do you have in your mind when you get ready in the morning’; ‘What if someone falls in love with you’; ‘but if I hug you and kiss you’ and thereafter the accused had caught hold of the hand whereupon the complainant stated ‘Sir, I will stop you’… calling her unnecessarily at odd hours, squarely comes within the ambit of Section 354A as well as Section 509 IPC.”
The Court noted: “To say that the statement of the Complainant is not corroborated by independent witnesses, would not be correct. The contention that various witnesses were recorded by the Department, but they all supported the Petitioner is of little significance, because many may have chosen not to depose against the Petitioner, but the statement of the Complainant and the four witnesses mentioned above, cannot be disregarded and are sufficient for summoning of the Petitioner.”
The Court concluded: “It has to be thus, concluded that there is sufficient material by way of statement of the Complainant and the witnesses as aforementioned, to prima facie disclose an offence under Section 354-A/509 IPC. The Ld. M.M has rightly discarded the Closure Report and taken cognizance in accordance with law. The Ld. ASJ has rightly upheld the Order of cognizance and Summoning.” There is no merit in the present Petition, which is hereby dismissed. Pending Applications are disposed of accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mayank Tripathi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC for State with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh Senger and Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh, Advocates, PS: Tughlak Road. Mr. Danish Aftab Chowdhury and Mr. Suhail Malik, Advocates
Case Title: Asif Hamid Khan v. State & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7773
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) 3501/2018 & CRL.M.A. 47419/2018
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
