Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR for abetment to sexual harassment against a businessman who allegedly did not pay heed to a woman’s complaint regarding molestation by another accused, and instead told her that she would have to succumb to inappropriate demands of she wanted to grow in business.While quashing the FIR, HC said that the businessman’s statement was made without any intention to abet the alleged molestation by the other accused, and therefore it cannot be termed as abetment.In 2016, the 32-year-old woman lodged an FIR with Ellisbridge police station accusing her senior of molesting her while they were touring different towns in Gujarat. She also accused him and another man of watching sexually explicit photos in her presence. She accused the first businessman of laughing out her complaints and instead telling her that if she wanted to grow in business, she would have to bear with such demands. The police invoked sections Sections 354, 354A, 354C, 354D and 114 of IPC.The businessman moved HC for quashing of the FIR. He argued that he had never collaborated with the co-accused in the alleged offence, neither was it his intention. Hence, he cannot be charged with abetment. After the hearing, Justice P M Raval quashed the charges against him and said that according to these sections of IPC, “the intention should be to aid the commission of a crime. Merely, by uttering the words that she will have to succumb to such polluted demands if she wants to grow in the business, without there being any intention, will not make the act of abetment of an offence if the petitioner did not know that the offence was being committed or contemplated.”HC further said, “It is also relevant to note that mens rea is an essential element for offence of abetment. The lodging of the FIR by the informant by taking recourse of law does not aid the commission of an offence by the present petitioner, though it may amount to concealment of the acts of the accused of an offence already perpetrated. Mere negligence or carelessness on the part of the present petitioner cannot be termed as an abetment.”
