Abetment to suicide of LGBTQIA+ employee: Karnataka HC refuses to quash FIR against staff of firm

It was submitted to the court that the deceased had submitted a complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. It was stated that he was repeatedly questioned on his sexuality.

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the proceedings against three managerial staff of a fashion designing company in a case of abetment to suicide. Three petitioners - Deputy General Manager (Marketing), Vice-President (Human Resources) and Assistant Manager (Marketing) at Lifestyle International Private Limited were booked under IPC Section 306 in a case pertaining to the suicide of one of their colleagues, belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community.

“If every citizen would treat such citizens (LGBTQIA+) with all love and care, as is done to a normal human, precious lives would not be lost. Unfortunately, the precious life of a youth is lost in the case at hand, all for the prima facie allegations of pointing at the sexual orientation of the deceased. Therefore, it is for every citizen to bear this in mind while interacting with sensitive people. It is necessary that every one of us introspect on this issue, after all, every one of them are human beings and all are worthy of equality (sic),” Justice M Nagaprasanna said while rejecting their petition.

The deceased was working in the company between 2014 and 2016 and had rejoined in 2022. The first petitioner was the person to whom the deceased was reporting to, the second petitioner was a teammate and the third petitioner was the manager. The complaint was filed against them by the father of the deceased on June 4, 2023.

It was submitted to the court that the deceased had submitted a complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. In his complaint, the deceased had alleged that he was being treated inappropriately as he belonged to the LGBTQIA+ community. It was stated that he was repeatedly questioned on his sexuality.

Justice Nagaprasanna said that if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds, or provoking them and driving them to the wall, all of these would also constitute ingredients of abetment, prima facie.

“It is not a case where there is no prima facie material or the allegations are made in thin air. Cases which involve the death of a person and the accused are guilty of abetment to suicide of the said victim will have to be considered owing to the facts of each case. There cannot be any particular parameter; yardstick; or a theorem for interference, particularly, in cases of abetment to suicide (sic),” the court said.