Delhi High Court upholds summoning in sexual harassment case despite closure reports

The Delhi High Court in Asif Hamid Khan v. State & Anr, dated 28 August 2025 considered whether criminal proceedings for sexual harassment can continue where both the Internal Committee (“IC”) and the police investigation have exonerated the accused. The case arose from allegations by a woman officer posted at the J&K Resident Commission in New Delhi, who complained of persistent unwelcome advances, suggestive remarks, and threats of transfer by her superior. While the IC concluded that no harassment had occurred and the police twice filed closure reports citing insufficient corroboration, the Magistrate nonetheless took cognizance and issued summons, a decision later affirmed by the Court.

The High Court refused to interfere, holding that a Magistrate is not bound by a closure report and is empowered to independently assess whether the material on record discloses a prima facie case. It observed that departmental or IC findings are confined to service law remedies and cannot foreclose criminal jurisdiction, as disciplinary inquiries and prosecutions operate in different spheres with distinct evidentiary thresholds. The Court also stressed that the complainant’s testimony, supported by statements of some colleagues, was adequate to summon the accused for trial. Importantly, it reiterated that the test of sexual harassment must be viewed from the perspective of the aggrieved woman rather than through stereotypical notions of acceptable conduct.

By upholding the summons, the Court reaffirmed that workplace sexual harassment complaints can give rise to parallel civil, disciplinary, and criminal consequences, each with its own scope. For employers, the ruling serves as a reminder that IC findings, even if exonerative, do not insulate individuals from criminal liability, and that parallel processes may proceed independently.