K’taka HC quashes FIR under SC/ST Act against Infosys’ Kris
In a significant development, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Infosys Co-founder Kris Gopalakrishnan and 17 members of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc). The FIR was lodged based on allegations made by an IISc faculty member that he was terminated from his job under the guise of a false sexual harassment case, and further accused them of subjecting him to casteist remarks.
The FIR was registered against Kris Gopalakrishnan, who is a prominent figure in the Indian IT industry, and the 17 IISc members, including faculty members and officials, under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, which deals with the commission of atrocities against SC/ST individuals. The complainant, who was a faculty member at IISc, alleged that he was subjected to casteist remarks and was terminated from his job due to his SC status.
However, the Karnataka High Court has now quashed the FIR, ruling that there was no sufficient evidence to support the allegations made by the complainant. The court observed that the FIR was lodged without conducting a preliminary investigation, and that the complainant’s allegations were based on hearsay evidence.
The FIR was lodged in August 2020, following a complaint made by the IISc faculty member to the police. The complainant alleged that he was terminated from his job in 2019 after he refused to withdraw his complaint against the sexual harassment he faced. He further alleged that Kris Gopalakrishnan and the 17 IISc members were involved in the conspiracy to terminate him from his job and subject him to casteist remarks.
The police had registered a case under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, which deals with the commission of atrocities against SC/ST individuals. The FIR was registered after the complainant produced a letter from the IISc director, stating that an investigation into the allegations had been conducted and that the complainant had been terminated from his job due to his alleged involvement in sexual harassment.
However, the Karnataka High Court has now quashed the FIR, ruling that the investigation conducted by the police was flawed and that there was no sufficient evidence to support the allegations made by the complainant. The court observed that the FIR was lodged without conducting a preliminary investigation, and that the complainant’s allegations were based on hearsay evidence.
The court also observed that the complainant had failed to produce any concrete evidence to support his allegations, and that the investigation conducted by the police was casual and lacked thoroughness. The court further observed that the FIR was lodged with an intention to harass and intimidate Kris Gopalakrishnan and the 17 IISc members, and that it was an abuse of the process of law.
The quashing of the FIR is a significant development, as it brings an end to the legal proceedings against Kris Gopalakrishnan and the 17 IISc members. The FIR had caused significant reputational damage to the accused, and the quashing of the FIR will help to restore their reputation.
The case also highlights the importance of conducting thorough investigations into allegations of casteist remarks and atrocities against SC/ST individuals. The FIR was lodged without conducting a preliminary investigation, and the complainant’s allegations were based on hearsay evidence. The quashing of the FIR serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the legal process and conducting thorough investigations into allegations of wrongdoing.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court’s decision to quash the FIR against Kris Gopalakrishnan and the 17 IISc members is a significant development that brings an end to the legal proceedings against the accused. The FIR was lodged without conducting a preliminary investigation, and the complainant’s allegations were based on hearsay evidence. The quashing of the FIR serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the legal process and conducting thorough investigations into allegations of wrongdoing.
