Pune: A magisterial court has held that setting aside an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report in a proceeding under the POSH Act cannot, by itself, give rise to criminal liability against every member of the panel.Judicial magistrate first class (JMFC) USM Alamodi on Thursday rejected the complaint of a former vice-principal of a prominent city college seeking an FIR and probe against the ICC members for holding him guilty of sexual harassment in a “biased” inquiry process and report on Oct 3, 2023.The former vice-principal’s case was that a teaching staff member lodged a false complaint of sexual harassment under the POSH Act out of personal vengeance after he scrutinised her work following complaints from students. He alleged the ICC members conspired to illegally reconstitute the panel, assisted the teacher during the inquiry, leaked confidential documents, allowed unauthorised interference in the proceedings, ignored exculpatory evidence and relied on hearsay evidence before submitting a biased report.The former vice-principal contended that an appellate authority on June 29, 2024, set aside the ICC report by ruling that the “allegations of sexual harassment were not proved”. He sought an investigation against the ICC members on charges of abetment, criminal conspiracy, fabrication, and use of fabricated evidence and criminal defamation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanita (BNS).The magistrate held, “Mere suspicion, conjectures, or allegations arising out of dissatisfaction with departmental proceedings cannot substitute the legal requirement of a prima facie case. The material placed on record does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, nor does it justify directing an investigation under Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).”The JMFC relied on a court-assigned police inquiry and noted that the investigating officer did not recover any material indicating that the accused fabricated electronic records, forged documents, or committed any other independent criminal act warranting registration of an FIR. “At the highest, the material indicates that the complainant disputes the fairness and legality of the ICC proceedings, which is a matter that has already been examined by the appellate authority,” the magistrate held.The court noted that even if the allegations regarding procedural irregularities, exchange of emails, appointment of members or appreciation of evidence were to be accepted at a face value, they primarily disclosed alleged defects in the conduct of a statutory departmental inquiry. The grievance regarding the inquiry had been redressed in a statutory proceeding before the appellate authority, which examined the legality and correctness of the ICC report and set it aside, the magistrate said.On defamation, the court said the complainant did not produce any material showing that the accused published any defamatory imputation outside the scope of the statutory proceedings with the requisite criminal intent.
