The Karnataka High Court has declined to quash criminal proceedings initiated against three managerial staff of a fashion designing company, in a case of abetment to suicide. The persons were accused of harassing their colleague on the basis of his sexual orientation.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said the deceased belongs to the LGBTQIA+ community. “The sensitivity of them being ostracised pervades in their psyche. Therefore, such people must be treated with all love and affection,” the court said.
The HC has also pointed out that persons who are from the LGBTQIA+ community should not be made to feel ostracised and that their “infirmity” on which they have no control should not be pointed out.
“It is necessary that every one of us introspect on this issue, after all, everyone of them are human beings and all are worthy of equality,” said the bench.
Three petitioners — Deputy General Manager (Marketing), Vice-President (Human Resources) and Assistant Manager (Marketing) at Lifestyle International Private Limited were booked under IPC Section 306 in a case pertaining to the suicide of one of their colleagues, belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community on June 4 this year.
“If every citizen would treat such citizens (LGBTQIA+) with all love and care, as is done to a normal human, precious lives would not be lost. Unfortunately, the precious life of a youth is lost in the case at hand, all for the prima facie allegations of pointing at the sexual orientation of the deceased. Therefore, it is for every citizen to bear this in mind while interacting with sensitive people. It is necessary that every one of us introspect on this issue, after all, every one of them are human beings and all are worthy of equality,” the judge said.
The deceased was working in the company between 2014 and 2016 and had re-joined in 2022. The first petitioner, Malathy SB, was the person to whom the deceased was reporting to, the second petitioner, Kumar Suraj was a teammate and the third petitioner, Nitish Kumar, was the manager. The complaint was filed against them by the father of the deceased.
The court was informed that the deceased had submitted a complaint to the Internal Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. In his complaint, the deceased had alleged that he was being treated inappropriately as he belonged to the LGBTQIA+ community. It was stated that he was repeatedly questioned on his sexuality. The deceased had also lodged a complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for repeated hurling of abuses against him just a day before ending his life.
The court said if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds, or provoking them and driving them to the wall, all of these would also constitute ingredients of abetment, prima facie.
“It is not a case where there is no prima facie material or the allegations are made in thin air. Cases which involve the death of a person and the accused are guilty of abetment to suicide of the said victim will have to be considered owing to the facts of each case. There cannot be any particular parameter; yardstick; or a theorem for interference, particularly, in cases of abetment to suicide,” the court said.
The bench also noted that it is barely three days after registration of the FIR, the present petition was filed and the investigation was still in progress.
“If the accused by their alleged acts have played an active role in tarnishing or destroying the self-esteem of a hypersensitive person or even their self-respect, would definitely become guilty of commission of abetment to suicide…. Delicate analysis of human behaviour that shrouds each case will have to be analysed, on a case to case basis. The human mind could be affected and would react in myriad ways, one such way could be ending of one’s life,” the bench said.
Therefore, all these would be in the realm of disputed questions of fact and would require investigation in the least, the court added.
Comments
0 comment