The Kerala High Court while granting bail to a man accused of committing sexual harassment remarked that nowadays, there is a tendency to make serious allegations of sexual assault against innocent people. The Court said that merely because the complainant is a lady, there is no presumption that her version is the gospel truth. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan declared that a criminal investigation involves investigation of the case of the complainant and accused and not just of the complainant. 

The Court said that if during investigation, the police finds that the lady complainant has made false allegation of sexual assault against a man, they can take action against the lady also. The Court assured the officers that they need not fear of any backfiring for taking such actions, as the law will take care of the officers if they are coming up with correct findings.

The Court said that therefore, the police should think twice before filing charge sheets in such cases. It was added that the court was burdened with several cases which involve serious questions of law and fact and it was on the police officers to ‘separate the chaff from the grain.’ The Court said that courts cannot conduct an investigation of the case; they can only decide the case based on the chargesheet submitted by the investigating authority. The Court said that therefore the police should investigate versions of both the accused and the victim.

It was alleged that the accused who was the manager of the company where the complainant was working grabbed the victim by her arms with sexual intent. He was booked under Section 75(1) (Sexual harassment) of the BNS. He approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. His version was that he dismissed the complainant from the company due to her inefficiency and non-performance.

 On that day, she verbally abused the petitioner and other staff and threatened them that ‘they would soon realize what she is capable of’. The petitioner filed a police complaint because of this threat.

The Court noted that the police received petitioner’s complaint before they received the complainant’s complaint. The Court had also heard an alleged conversation of the complainant in which she threatened that the petitioner would soon realize what she is capable of. The Court noted that the police has not investigated the complaint given by the petitioner. The Court observed that the investigating officer should was investigated the matter taking into account the petitioner’s complaint and the alleged conversation between the petitioner and the complainant in which she was threatening the petitioner.

 The Court directed the police to investigate the audio and the complaint. It was also directed to take an action against the complainant if it is found that she had filed a false case. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted bail after imposing certain conditions.

Case Title: Noushad K . v State of Kerala and Another