Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against six employees of Geddit Convenience Pvt. Ltd., a licensee Zepto, holding that the criminal complaint alleging outraging of the modesty
of a woman was filed with the intention of seeking vengeance after her termination from service.
Allegations of Workplace Misconduct Made Against Six Colleagues
The complainant had approached the Powai police station accusing six of her co-workers of misbehaving with her at the workplace. She alleged that one colleague repeatedly spoke to her in an insulting manner and that when she reported the conduct to seniors, she was told that some employees were shareholders and that she should keep them “happy”. She further claimed that she was called into a room where colleagues used foul language and that some co-workers touched her inappropriately while she was on phone calls.
Based on her complaint, the police booked the accused under Sections 354, 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
However, the HC noted serious inconsistencies between the version in the FIR and the complainant’s subsequent statements, observing that “the version of respondent no.2 (complainant) in her statement is contrary to the version in the complaint resulting into filing of FIR and therefore her accusations in the complaint cannot be trusted fully”.
Internal Inquiry Found Meeting Was About Poor Performance
The bench relied on the internal inquiry conducted by the company. Statements of employees present at the relevant meeting were recorded and consistently indicated that the meeting was convened to discuss the complainant’s poor performance. The inquiry found that she was questioned about non-performance of assigned tasks and failure to follow reporting protocols, including working from home without prior approval.
A report prepared by the company’s General Counsel, after interviewing all concerned, concluded: “From the interviews conducted, there is no evidence to support the allegation that… the purpose of the meeting was to outrage her modesty.”
Complainant Declined to Sign Inquiry Statement or Approach ICC
The court also noted that the complainant refused to sign her statement during the inquiry despite being given an opportunity to do so or modify it. Although she was advised that she could approach the Internal Complaints Committee, she chose not to and instead lodged the FIR. She was subsequently issued a show-cause notice for misconduct and non-compliance with office protocols. Despite being given a last opportunity to explain her conduct, she failed to respond, leading to termination of her services, which she never challenged.
Significantly, the FIR was lodged about four months after her termination. The Bench observed: “We find that upon the complainant being terminated… she thought of a way up and after four months… lodged a report alleging that her modesty was outraged.”
Holding that no offence under Section 354 was made out, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, as the FIR was filed “with the intention of seeking vengeance”, and quashed the case to prevent grave injustice.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
