The Gujarat High Court has directed a probe on a complaint of rape against Chairman and Managing Director of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Rajiv Modi, filed by a Bulgarian woman, who was an employee of the CMD.
The HC set aside the ruling of the chief judicial magistrate’s court, which had rejected the woman’s complaint.
The HC said a senior IPS officer be nominated by the state DIG (law and order) to investigate the complaint.
It also directed that the probe shall be completed within two months.
Observing that the chief judicial magistrate “did not follow the proper course of law”, the bench of Justice HD Suthar also pulled up police for not taking action on the 27-year-old woman’s complaint when she first approached them in May this year.
Making observations on the struggles faced by women complaining of sexual harassment, Justice Suthar in his order said: “Only few bold and courageous victims get ready to take torment and start legal battle. Considering the prevailing scenario, police authority and learned Magistrates ought to have dealt with such complaints in a sensitive manner.”
The complainant, who was employed as a flight attendant and a personal assistant for Modi in August last year, has alleged several instances of sexual harassment between February and March this year. She also alleged that she was fired in April after she refused to surrender to CMD Modi’s “illicit demands”.
The woman moved the magistrate court in July, alleging rape, criminal assault and criminal intimidation, among others, by the CMD and Jhonson Matthew, another employee of the Ahmedabad-based firm.
She sought directions from the magistrate’s court for immediate lodging of an FIR and action against police officers, specifically Mahila police station ACP Himala Joshi, for inaction when she approached them first.
In October, however, the chief judicial magistrate court rejected the woman’s plea following which she moved the High Court.Quashing this order, Justice Suthar directed the chief judicial magistrate to pass an order of investigation under CrPC Section 156(3), “having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the need for fair investigation”.
“The allegations leveled in the complaint disclose cognizable offence and it was the duty of police to investigate the offence and file appropriate report after investigation,” Justice Suthar said.
“As the petitioner herself raised voice against inaction on the part of the police rather than inquire into allegations independently and form any decision, learned Magistrate only has relied on the report of police officers….,” Justice Suthar said. “Though the Magistrate was duty-bound to conduct the inquiry independently, considering the nature of allegations, he did not follow the proper course of law…”
“Going through the record and proceedings of the inquiry, so many irregularities are noticed with regard to the procedure adopted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while conducting inquiry proceedings… on one hand, the learned Magistrate does not give ample opportunity to lead evidence and denies an opportunity to produce witnesses in order to substantiate allegations made in the complaint, and on the other hand says that the complainant has not produced any evidence…,” the order said.
“Chief Judicial Magistrate has not followed the position of law and committed an error in dismissing the complaint,” it said.
Justice Suthar also recorded the lax investigation by the police officers. “While the complaint was prima facie disclosed cognizable and non-compoundable offences, including allegation of human trafficking, it was the duty of the police to thoroughly and impartially investigate the allegations, more particularly in the case of human trafficking…,” he said.
In her complaint, the woman has claimed that her attempts at registering an FIR at the Mahila police station and with other authorities were unsuccessful and that officers at the Mahila police station had pressured her to withdraw her complaint.
In this regard, Justice Suthar directed the state to look into the woman’s allegations of dereliction of duty against police officers, and in case any fault was found, it would be open to the state to take appropriate action.
Also Read: Layering: Survival Tips For Indian Students In Cold Weather Abroad
