In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court underscored the challenges faced by families in traditional societies, such as those in India, when reporting sexual offences. Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale highlighted this issue while rejecting a plea to dismiss a sexual assault case against a Mumbai resident accused of groping his domestic worker.
The court emphasized that cases involving allegations of sexual offences should not be dismissed solely due to unexplained delays, unless there is evidence of malicious intent or a vendetta. Justice Bhonsale noted that the social stigma attached to victims of sexual offences often contributes to such delays.
“In cases of sexual offences or those under section 498A (marital cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, delays must be assessed in the context of the circumstances surrounding the offence. In our traditional society, many families find it extremely difficult to initiate even a legitimate criminal prosecution for such offences,” remarked the court.
The observation came during the dismissal of a petition by Nandakumar Panicker, who sought to quash a criminal case filed against him under Section 354 (outraging a woman’s modesty) of the IPC. Panicker argued that a 21-day delay in lodging the FIR suggested the complaint was an afterthought. He presented CCTV footage of the building and noted the investigating officer’s failure to record the woman’s statement.
However, Justice Bhonsale determined that these were defenses to be evaluated during the trial and not grounds for dismissing the case at the outset. According to the FIR, Panicker hired the complainant in February 2019 to cook twice daily for a salary of ₹5,000 per month, with her starting on March 1, 2019.
More Read
The complaint detailed that on March 10, 2019, Panicker allegedly molested the complainant, prompting her to flee the flat. Initially, she remained silent due to fear of upsetting her husband but later disclosed the incident to him. A formal complaint was lodged on April 2, 2019, leading to a chargesheet.
Panicker contended that he terminated the woman’s services due to poor cooking, after which she allegedly threatened him with false allegations and exorbitant salary demands. He also referenced a prior letter to the police presenting his account and a purported settlement meeting at the police station where he paid her ₹5,000 on humanitarian grounds.
Nevertheless, the court found that the FIR’s account of events constituted a prima facie case and refused to quash it. Representing Panicker were Advocates Haresh Jagtiani, Nikhil Ghate, and Pushpvijay Kanoji, briefed by Haresh Jagtiani and Associates. Additional public prosecutor YM Nakhwa appeared for the State, while Advocates Dilip Shukla and Priya Pandey represented the complainant.
