BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has quashed the FIR registered against Infosys co-founder Kris Gopalakrishnan, Indian Institute of Science (IISc) director Prof Govindan Rangarajan and 14 others under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act based on a complaint filed by Dr D Sanna Durgappa, former professor of the Centre for Sustainable Technologies.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar passed the order recently while allowing the petition filed by Gopalakrishnan, chairman, Governing Council, IISc, and others, questioning the legality of the crime registered by the Sadashivanagar Police Station. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate petition before the Advocate General seeking permission to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Durgappa.
“The present private complaint, which makes similar allegations except for the inclusion of additional accused Nos.16 and 17 (the advocates for the institution), who allegedly threatened the complainant to quit the service, is an abuse of process of law,” the court said and termed the filing of the third complaint as “a vexatious attempt to harass the petitioners”. The court noted that it is clear that the allegations made against the petitioners do not constitute offences under the SC/ST Act.
Durgappa was terminated for sexual harassment after a departmental inquiry. He challenged the termination before the court. The parties filed a joint memo, and as per the terms of the settlement, the termination was converted into resignation. He was entitled to all terminal benefits arising from the resignation.
The court noted that Durgappa also agreed to withdraw all proceedings and complaints lodged with various authorities, such as the National Commission for SCs/STs, the additional DGP, directorate of civil rights enforcement, and the deputy superintendent of police, Civil Rights Cell.
Despite this, he filed two similar complaints under Section 200 of the CrPC, the court said. The registration of the crime based on these complaints was challenged by some of the petitioners-accused before this court by filing two separate petitions.