The Karnataka High Court.
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings against the Director and Head of Controlling and Reporting and 10 other employees of Swiss Reinsurance Company Limited based in Zurich, Switzerland in a case of Sexual harassment at workplace.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said that a reading of the complaint between the lines would clearly indicate that it was registered to wreak vengeance against all, who did not have any role to play for the ingredients in the complaint.
The complainant joined one of the units of the company in 2017 as its vice president. In the course of normal functioning of the complainant, two accused named in the complaint (accused 7 and 10) raised certain complaints against the complainant, alleging violations of code of conduct with instances of such violations. Ultimately, the complainant was terminated in April 2019.
On May 30, 2019, the complainant filed a civil suit seeking for damages from the company and in the interregnum filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment. In 2021, she filed a private complaint before the court naming several persons of Indian entities in the company.
The petitioners moved the court after the magistrate referred it to investigation against the 12 accused for offences punishable under IPC sections 354(A), 107, 500, 506 and 120B. The specific allegation was that one of the employees (accused 7) had sexually harassed her while all the other accused conspired with accused number 7 to terminate her from the company.
The petitioners contended that the complainant had abused the process of law and informed the court that the suit filed by her alleging illegal termination had been dismissed in April 2023.
Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the complaint is tactfully worded and nowhere it indicates that there is any allegation against any other accused. “Whoever comes to the mind of the complainant is drawn into the umbrella of crime and the complainant is now wanting to hold the shaft of the umbrella of crime to get the investigation done against these petitioners.
"In the considered view of this court, the action of the complainant in registering the complaint cannot but be held to be counter-blast to all the actions the complainant was meted out by the Company, for her own acts. The charges were laid, they were said to be proved and she was terminated from the services of the Company. For having terminated, the officers of the Company who are not even involved in any of the allegations are brought under the web of crime,” the court said.
The court further said, “While the same cannot be said about accused No.7, who appears to have indulged in certain ingredients which would become an offence under Section 354A of the IPC. Therefore, investigation should necessarily be permitted qua accused No.7.”