LI Network
Published on: 27 April 2023 at 12:25 IST
Gauhati High Court denied to grant any interim relief to Youth Congress national president Srinivas BV in his plea moved before it seeking to quash an FIR filed against him by an expelled party leader accusing him of outraging her modesty and heckling her.
The Gauhati High Court declined to provide interim relief to Srinivas BV, the national president of Youth Congress, in his plea to dismiss an FIR filed against him by an expelled party leader accusing him of heckling and outraging her modesty.
Justice Ajit Borthakur stated that reviewing the case diary, including the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, was essential before considering the petitioner’s interim prayer for a fair decision. Srinivas is accused of mentally harassing the former President of Assam Youth Congress with sexist and slang language and threats of dire consequences if she disclosed his actions to Congress Party high officials.
It is further alleged that he heckled her and used vulgar language against her during the plenary session of the Congress Party in Raipur on March 25, 2021.
Despite informing the high officials of Congress Party of Srinivas’ actions, no action was taken, leading to the filing of the FIR under Sections 509/294/341/352/354/354A(iv)/506 of the IPC read with Section 67 of the I.T. Act, 2000.
Srinivas, the Youth Congress national president, went to the Gauhati HC to challenge the FIR against him, requesting to quash the Notice issued by Dispur P.S. in the case.
He also asked for protection against any coercive action and a stay on the proceedings under the notice of personal appearance/summons issued by the Inspector General of Police, CID, Ulubari, Guwahati, Assam while the present petition is pending. Srinivas’ lawyer argued that the FIR was politically motivated and that the Assam Police had no jurisdiction to investigate the case.
The lawyer also claimed that the allegations made in the complaint do not make out the necessary offences.
Although the petitioner’s counsel urged the court to grant relief immediately, the court said that it needed to review the case diary and statement of the victim woman under Section 164 CrPC before making a decision. As a result, the court postponed the hearing until May 2.