The Punjab and Haryana High Court mandates more stringent procedures in instances of extortion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday ordered the investigators to confirm whether payment or consideration was made to officials or the complainant for compromise or retracting from initial statements before filing cancellation reports. This is a significant ruling that could change the way complainants in cases of sextortion and false sexual assaults make a U-turn.
The concerned public officials were also instructed to think about filing a complaint under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code in cases where there was no proof of compulsion, intimidation, threat, or duress. The clause addresses misleading information intended to persuade a public worker to use their official authority in a way that would harm another individual. Senior police officials were also instructed to intervene when victims or complainants changed their stories from the beginning.
Additionally, Justice Anoop Chitkara ordered that the order be sent to the DGP of Haryana for compliance and to his equivalents in Punjab and Chandigarh for information and to consider issuing similar directives.
In a case that Justice Chitkara was hearing, the informant/complainant became combative and refuted the information she had first provided in the FIR, saying that the “initial implication was probably honey trapping and sextortion.”
According to Justice Chitkara, there are other cases when victims of sexual assault have recanted their accounts after making grave accusations. As a result, it was crucial to provide the instructions to be shared with all relevant police officers and investigators.
In order to prevent sextortion and false accusations, Justice Chitkara said that supervisory officials or investigators working on sexual crime cases have to include reports into police proceedings when victims or complainants withdrew their first testimonies. After then, they had a duty to provide the case file to the SP as soon as possible. He was then told to oversee the inquiry by an IPS officer or DSP and either manage it himself or delegate it to another investigator.
If the choice was made not to prosecute or to adopt an alternative course of action, the relevant SP was also required to explain to the DGP why they did not “file” the complaint. After that, the DGP would either make the ultimate decision himself or designate it to an IPS officer. The officers’ service records were to be used as evidence of noncompliance with the guidelines.
Judge Chitkara stated that the deadline for the directives was March 31. “Such directions aim to secure the interests and welfare of both the survivors of sexual assault so that they are not dominated and highhanded into making illegal compromises, and innocent people are not trapped by malicious allegations of sexual assault,” the judge said.
