Important provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

[Act 14 of 2013 as amended up to Act 23 of 2016 and updated as of 30th April 2024]

An Act to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto

Whereas sexual harassment results in violation of the fundamental rights of a woman to equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and her right to life and to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution and right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business which includes a right to a safe environment free from sexual harassment;

And whereas the protection against sexual harassment and the right to work with dignity are universally recognised human rights by international conventions and instruments such as Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, which has been ratified on the 25th June, 1993 by the Government of India;

And whereas it is expedient to make provisions for giving effect to the said Convention for protection of women against sexual harassment at workplace;

Print Page

Whether the court can treat charge-sheet filed against accused in the non-cognizable offence as Complaint case?

In the present matter, investigation was undertaken for non-cognizance offence and charge-sheet filed under non-cognizance offences only, therefore, charge-sheet should be treated as a complaint. Therefore, the order impugned i.e. order of taking cognizance is set aside and the learned trial court shall proceed the case as a complaint case under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court may also directed to take it into consideration the Proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Application U/S 482 No. 45609 of 2018

Decided On: 31.01.2019

 Santosh Kumar  Vs.  State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Print Page

Whether the court can take cognizance of offence if the police have filed chargesheet against accused in the non-cognizable crime?

As a matter of caution, I feel it is just and necessary to enumerate some guidelines to the learned Magistrates and to the Department of Police. The Judicial Magistrates who are empowered to take cognizance u/s. 190 of Cr.P.C., they have to strictly adopt the procedure as contemplated under the Cr.P.C. and also adhere to other relevant provisions under other laws for the time being in force. The following aspects are necessary to be followed by the learned Magistrates.

"(1) If a report is submitted by the Police the Magistrate has to meticulously look into the entire police papers to find out whether the offence is with reference to a cognizable or non-cognizable offences or mixture of both and the report is with reference to a noncognizable offence only, then the Magistrate has to ascertain whether cognizance can be taken or not, by ascertaining that all the legal requirements are fulfilled under Sections 190 and 154, and 155 and 2(d) of Criminal Procedure Code.

(2) If the report of the police is only with reference to a non-cognizable offence, then the Court has to find out whether at the initial stages, the Police Officer has taken the permission of the Court or proceeded with the investigation on the guise that some cognizable offence was also committed and only after investigation he came to know that a non-cognizable offence is committed and therefore, the report can be treated as a complaint u/s. 2(d) of Cr.P.C.

(3) If the Magistrate at the initial stages is of the opinion that the report cannot be treated as a complaint u/s. 2(d) of Cr.P.C., he should not take cognizance of the offence. He should return the charge sheet to the concerned police for following the proper procedure, or he can refer it for further investigation if necessary after according permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. without taking cognizance.

(4) If the report is treated as a complaint u/s. 2(d) Cr.P.C., then the Magistrate has to take cognizance and then to look into whether any further investigation is required. If so, he can refer the matter for further investigation u/s. 202 of Cr.P.C. and proceed further in accordance with law.

(5) The Magistrate has to apply his judicious mind in order to ascertain, whether the Court has got jurisdiction to take cognizance pertaining to a noncognizable offence in a very meticulous manner, though the Courts are over flooded with criminal cases, but the same cannot be an excuse for applying its judicious mind."

63. In the event of Court not applying its mind meticulously to the factual and legal aspects of the case, it would definitely lead to multiplicity and endless litigations.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)

Criminal Petition Nos. 100319 and 100326 of 2014

Decided On: 25.07.2014

 Moin Basha Kurnooli  Vs.  The State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.N. Phaneendra, J.

Print Page

Whether appeal against acquittal in bailable and non-cognizable offences is maintainable before session court?

It is not disputed that Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act are bailable and non-cognizable offences. Similar is the position with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, keeping in view that the main offences for the commission of which the accused were charged are bailable and non-cognizable. In these circumstances, it is but apparent that the appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi was not maintainable and was hit by provisions of Clause (b) of Sub-section(1) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla

(Before Ajay Mohan Goel, J.)

Pushap Raj and another v. The State of Himachal Pradesh 

Cr. Revision No. 168 of 2010

Decided on March 16, 2017

Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine HP 282

Print Page

Whether investigation of offence of drunken driving conducted without sanction of magistrate is valid?

The learned Judicial Magistrate, by relying upon the case of
Dharampal Vs. State of UP, 2006 (2) ALL LJ 94, has found that no
prejudice has been caused to the defence of the applicant/accused or no
miscarriages of justice has occurred in this case by police investigating
the offence without obtaining permission from the Magistrate and
therefore, this would not be a case falling under the categories listed in
Section 461 Cr.P.C.3
6. Upon consideration of the case in its entirety, I could not
find any illegality or perversity in finding recorded in the order of
learned Sessions Judge with regard to investigating the case without
magistrate's permission, as no prejudice has been caused thereby to the
applicant/accused.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2016
MR. CHANDRAKANT DESAI, PRESENTLY
LODGED AT SUB JAIL SADA, VASCO GOA
V
STATE OF GOA,
 Coram:- S. B. SHUKRE, J.
 Date:- 15th February, 2016.
Citation:2016 CRLJ(NOC)351 Bom

Print Page

Whether Magistrate can direct police investigation as per S 156 of crpc in respect of non cognizable case?

It is quite apparent that the Section can be invoked only when the Court is dealing with investigation into cognizable case. Section 500 of I.P.C. relates to non-cognizable case. Section 155 of Cr.P.C. relates to matters where there is information as to non-cognizable case and investigation of such non-cognizable case. Sub-

 section (2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. lays down that no police officer shall investigate a non-

cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. The police on their own cannot investigate into a non-cognizable without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case. In the present matter, the J.M.F.C. had power to try the non-cognizable case. The J.M.F.C., after receiving the private complaint, did not examine the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The Magistrate could have postponed issue of process and either inquired into the case himself or could have directed an investigation to be made by the police officer or such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Such steps could have been taken invoking Section 202 of Cr.P.C. But the J.M.F.C.

could not have resorted to Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which does not deal with non-cognizable

Bombay High Court

Shri Yogesh Balkrishna Kakade vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 3 July, 2015

                   CORAM:  S.S. SHINDE AND
                           A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 3RD JULY, 2015.

 Citation: 2015(3)BomCR(Cri)643

Print Page

Whether Magistrate can order police investigation under S 156 of CRPC if complaint does not disclose cognizable offence?

When the allegation made in the complaint does not disclose cognizable offence, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order police investigation under sub-section (3). In the present case, the learned Magistrate without applying his mind had directed an investigation by the police. Such an order which is passed without application of mind is clearly an order without jurisdiction. Therefore, the order passed directing the police to investigate under subsection (3) of Section 156, Cr. P.C., passed without jurisdiction is liable to be quashed by this Court either under Section 482, Cr. P.C., or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(emphasis supplied)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 258 of 2013 (APL)

Decided On: 02.07.2013

 State of Maharashtra Vs.  Shashikant

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: B.R. Gavai and P.N. Deshmukh, JJ.

 Citation: 2013(5)ABR86,2013 ALLMR(cri) 3060

Print Page

Whether court can direct police to register offence of bigamy punishable U/S 494 of CPC?

 In so far as present case is concerned, it is not in dispute that Section 494 of I.P.C. is a non-cognizable offence and, therefore, in view of bar under Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C., the court could not take cognizance unless a complaint is made by the person aggrieved by the offence. In case of an offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C., the aggrieved person would be wife or a complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or any relative or person mentioned in Sub-Clause "c" of Sub-Section 1 of Section 198 of the Cr.P.C. It is thus clear that even after the investigation if a Police report is submitted, the learned Magistrate would not be in a position to take cognizance on the basis of the said report since cognizance could not be taken on a complaint made by anyone else other than the person aggrieved by the offence. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Application deserves to be allowed.

Bombay High Court

Sow. Swati Sachin Mahajan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2007

Equivalent citations: I (2008) DMC 79

B.R. Gavai, J.

Print Page