VERDICTUM.
IN
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3348 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.2 and 4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings
against them in C.C.No.20976 of 2019 pending on the file of III-
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,
Hyderabad. The allegations leveled against the petitioners are
under Sections 354 (A) (ii) and 509 of Indian Penal Code (for
short ‘I.P.C’).
2. The facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner is an
Assistant Vice President, PRO of Star India Private Limited (Star
Maa Division) which is a leading broadcaster in India and is the
exclusive licensee of media rights to various sporting events.
The company along with its affiliated companies owns a network
of about 65 TV channels in eight languages. The 2nd petitioner
is the Vice President, Programming Department of Star India
Private Limited (Star Maa Division).
3. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant gave a complaint
on 13.07.2019 stating that one Ravikanth (A.1) called her in
VERDICTUM.IN
2
March, 2019 and informed her that she had been selected in Big
Boss-3 show. Upon enquiry, as to how they got her number,
she was informed that she has been a trending star on social
media in recent times, as such, she was selected. Thereafter,
A.1 met 2nd respondent at News Republic TV in the month of
March, where, he explained the details of game and later on, the
2nd respondent met A.1, Abhishek (A.3) at Baskin Robins,
Banjara Hills, where they discussed further details and also met
1st petitioner at Mint Leaf Restaurant at Srinagar Colony. The
1st petitioner who is a coordinator discussed about the rules and
regulations of the show and also informed that the show would
go on for 90 days staring from 21st of July. Thereafter, the 2nd
respondent and 1st petitioner met two to three times and in the
fourth meeting, apart from Raghu, the HR Manager of Star Maa
was also present where they discussed about remuneration and
the 2nd respondent was made to sign on bond papers and due to
her prior commitments, she skimmed through the said papers
and she was informed that she would be given papers in due
course. Later the 2nd respondent was informed that she was
selected for the Big Boss show and she should not take up any
projects for a period of three months.
VERDICTUM.IN
3
4. On 04.06.2019 the 2nd respondent met the petitioners in
Mint Leaf Restaurant where the 2nd petitioner used filthy
language at her sitting by the side of 1st petitioner and the
following conversation took place between the 2nd petitioner and
2nd respondent :
Shyam : Why we should take you in big boss ?
Swetha Reddy : I did not ask you to select me in Big
Boss.
Shyam : Not like that madam how will you satisfy
our boss ?
Swetha Reddy : Why should I satisfy your boss.
Shyam : To come to Big Boss you should satisfy
our boss ?
Swetha Reddy : I don’t have any need to satisfy your
boss.
Shyam : When are you decreasing your body
weight?
Swetha Reddy : Big Boss is a mind game, so that
don’t need any relation with body, why are you
asking about body shaping.
Shyam : To look attractive and beautiful, you need
to impress our boss.
Swetha Reddy : to come to Big Boss, your boss
needs zero size beauties and he takes who looks so.
Shyam : By seeing, who looks attractive only our
boss gets impressed.
Swetha Reddy: To impress your boss, I don’t have
any interest to participate in the show.
VERDICTUM.IN
4
Shyam : When you commit to impress our boss till
the end of the show, they only we will take you.
5. In the complaint the 2nd respondent further alleged that
after the above conversation, she left the place as the 2nd
petitioner insulted her and she was mentally depressed. Hence,
the 2nd respondent lodged the complaint. The police after
conducting investigation filed charge sheet for the offences
referred supra.
6. Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri T.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is
that the averments in the charge sheet even if presumed to be
true, they do not constitute any offence and the statement of 2nd
respondent itself is not sufficient to proceed against the
petitioners. The alleged statement of 2nd respondent which was
relied upon by the investigating officer, led the petitioners being
added as an accused in the charge sheet, cannot be the sole
basis for proceeding against them and registration of FIR and
filing charge sheet is nothing but abuse of process of law. The
averments of the complaint does not constitute any offence
VERDICTUM.IN
5
much less Section 354-A (ii) of I.P.C, there is delay of 40 days in
filing a complaint from the date of alleged incident i.e.,
04.06.2019 is inconceivable, since the 2nd respondent is a
journalist by profession. The 2nd respondent failed to explain
the delay in giving the complaint. The investigating officer
ought to have seen that in the absence of any material evidence
or attribution of overt act or omission to the petitioners, they
cannot be said to have committed any offence merely on the
basis of preponderance of probabilities and the allegations are
leveled solely due to non-selection to the Big Boss show and as
per the complainant also, there is no physical attack, demand or
request for sexual favour or making sexual colour marks by the
petitioners. As such, the offences alleged do not attract to the
petitioners and the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor would submit that there are serious allegations
against these petitioners and the case is of the year 2019, which
requires trial and prayed the Court to dismiss this petition
directing the trial Court to conclude the trial at the earliest.
9. Having regard to the submissions made and the material
available on record, the allegations against these petitioners are
VERDICTUM.IN
6
the 2nd petitioner who is A.4 asked the 2nd respondent as to how
she would satisfy his boss and she has to satisfy his boss to
select in the Big Boss show. He has also commented on her
body shape. To attract Section 354-A of I.P.C, the ingredients of
the provision should be satisfied.
10. Section 354-A of I.P.C., reads as under :
“354-A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual
harassment.—(1) A man committing any of the following acts—
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and
explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the
offence of sexual harassment.
(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or
clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years,
or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of
sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine,
or with both.”
11. In the present case, the only statement of 2nd respondent
is that the 2nd petitioner asked her as to how she would satisfy
VERDICTUM.IN
7
his boss, whereas there is no demand for sexual favour.
Further, the discussion on body shape does not attract the
offence under Section 354-A (ii) of I.P.C and as seen from the
record, there is delay of 40 days in giving complaint and no
reasons are assigned by the 2nd respondent for the said delay.
In column No.8 of the FIR, it is mentioned as “No delay”,
whereas, as per the complaint, the incident occurred on
04.06.2019 and the 2nd respondent gave complaint to the police
on 13.07.2019 with a delay of 39 days. Further the statement
of Lw.2 who is working as Manager in Mint Leaf Restaurant
shows that the 2nd respondent used to visit their restaurant
occasionally and she told that because of Ravikanth and Shyam,
she was not selected to the Big Boss show as she has not given
any commitment to their Boss and that she was troubled
mentally and physically.
12. Admittedly there is delay of 39 days in giving complaint
which is not explained and the record shows that there is no
explanation with regard to delay. Further, the averments in the
complaint are that one of the accused stated that 2nd
respondent has to satisfy his boss but there is no averment to
show that the 2nd respondent has to satisfy the boss sexually.
Therefore, Section 354-A (ii) does not attract to the petitioners
VERDICTUM.IN
8
and there are no further averments to constitute the offence
under Section 509 of I.P.C. Viewed from any angle the
averments do not constitute any of the offences and further
there is unexplained delay of 39 days in giving complaint, even
though the 2nd respondent is a journalist, which fortifies the
argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that 2nd
respondent gave complaint only after she came to know that she
is not selected to Big Boss show. As such, continuation of
proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of
process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.20976 of 2019
pending on the file of III-Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, is hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date : 09.09.2024
Rds
