TIMES OF INDIA| Nov 23, 2011 | PAGE 4 | MADURAI EDITION
Disposing a petition alleging sexual harassment by Madurai-Ramnad CSI Bishop Christopher Asir, the Madurai bench of the Madras high court on Tuesday directed the petitioner to approach the judicial magistrate.
In a petition, Magdalene Nesakumari, an employee at the office of CSI Diocese at K Pudhur, has sought a direction to the police to register a case based on her complaint against the bishop.
She alleged that she was sexually harassed by the bishop and claimed that he was partial to her by denying her a promotion after she refused his sexual
advances.
Nesakumari also alleged that the bishop had denied her request to post her at some other location, with an ulterior motive.
In her petition, she further alleged that the bishop had not disbursed her salaries. When the matter came up for hearing before Justice V Periya Karuppiah, it was submitted by the government advocate that "the primary investigation of the complaint is on and the complaint will be registered if any prima facie evidence is made out."
Disposing the matter, Justice Karuppiah pointed out that the petitioner did not follow the procedures.
"She should have approached the superintendent of police after the inspector failed to accept her complaint. Thereafter, she should have approached the judicial magistrate, who can take cognizance of the case under criminal procedure."
Disposing a petition alleging sexual harassment by Madurai-Ramnad CSI Bishop Christopher Asir, the Madurai bench of the Madras high court on Tuesday directed the petitioner to approach the judicial magistrate.
In a petition, Magdalene Nesakumari, an employee at the office of CSI Diocese at K Pudhur, has sought a direction to the police to register a case based on her complaint against the bishop.
She alleged that she was sexually harassed by the bishop and claimed that he was partial to her by denying her a promotion after she refused his sexual
advances.
Nesakumari also alleged that the bishop had denied her request to post her at some other location, with an ulterior motive.
In her petition, she further alleged that the bishop had not disbursed her salaries. When the matter came up for hearing before Justice V Periya Karuppiah, it was submitted by the government advocate that "the primary investigation of the complaint is on and the complaint will be registered if any prima facie evidence is made out."
Disposing the matter, Justice Karuppiah pointed out that the petitioner did not follow the procedures.
"She should have approached the superintendent of police after the inspector failed to accept her complaint. Thereafter, she should have approached the judicial magistrate, who can take cognizance of the case under criminal procedure."
0 comments :
Post a Comment