The High Court, however, said that the complainant had provided a detailed account of the petitioner’s conduct towards her. She had also submitted the transcripts of the messages he had sent to her. In this light, the complainant’s allegations were “sufficient enough to make out a case for sexual harassment in the work place or any other related offence.” Therefore, one could not claim that the allegations made by the complainant were “bald” and that the magistrate had issued the direction “without any basis.”
“Though it is correct to state that the Court has to record the reasons basing on the allegations how it got satisfied about the prima facie case, that would benefit the petitioner only if the complaint given by the second respondent is bald and the learned Magistrate has mechanically passed an order to register an FIR without appreciating the baldness in the complaint. The order has been given with more clarity. Had it recorded the reasons as to why the Court got satisfied about the prima facie case that could have been a better order, but that cannot be the reason to set aside the order even when the complaint contains the material particulars. Hence it cannot be said that the order has been passed without application of mind,” the order stated.
While dismissing the accused’s plea, the Court said that it was too early to interfere with the magistrate’s order.
“So it is premature to come to any conclusion on the materials produced by the petitioner at this stage. Since the complaint of the second respondent discloses the cognizable offence, it is right for the learned Magistrate to order to register the FIR and investigate. On the conclusion of the investigation also if no sufficient materials are collected or the complaint appears to be a motivated one, then the petitioner is at the liberty to initiate appropriate proceeding…”
Source: Barandbench
