The case registered against Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader A.K. Saseendran who resigned as Transport Minister in the wake of allegations of having smutty phone conversations with a woman reporter of a Malayalam channel took a new turn on Friday with the woman moving the Kerala High Court saying the “entire disputes” with the former Minister had been amicably settled.
The petition has been filed at a time when NCP Minister Thomas Chandy who has stepped into the shoes of Mr. Saseendran is facing serious allegations of encroachment of government land and reclamation of backwaters by a resort owned by him at Alappuzha. In her petition, she said the case was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by her under Sections 354(A) (sexual harassment) and (D) (stalking) and 509 (insulting the modesty of women thorough words, gestures and acts) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
"Purely personal"ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
In her complaint, she alleged that on November 8, 2016 when she went to the then Minister's residence to interview him on the setting up of she-toilets in depots of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), he asked her to go upstairs of the home, made sexually explicit comments and placed his hands on her shoulder. Thus, Mr. Saseendran had committed the offences of sexual harassment and stalking by outraging her modesty. However, “the entire dispute has been amicably settled” now. Therefore, she did not want to continue with the prosecution proceedings. She said the dispute with Mr. Saseendran was “purely personal in nature.”
She submitted that “in the light of the compromise and settlement arrived at between the parties concerned, the complaint and all further proceedings pursuant to it in CC No.528/17 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court , Thiruvananthapuram, are liable to be quashed for being unwarranted and futile exercise”. Besides, none other than the petitioner and Mr. Saseendran would be affected by compromising the case between them. In fact, no public interest was involved in the case. She added that in view of the compromise, “the possibility of conviction” in the case was bleak. Therefore, extreme injustice would be caused to the parties if the criminal prosecution was continued.