Dr. Ashwin Hebbar K v. State by Shimogga Women Police Station & Anr. (WP No. 18058 of 2022), Karnataka High Court, 10 September 2026, Justice V. Srishananda
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a doctor in the Department of General Surgery at a medical institute in Shimogga, was the subject of a complaint by a Junior Resident who worked under him. The complaint alleged sexual harassment by him.
The matter was first referred to the Internal Local Committee (ILC), and that matter “was closed.” A regular police complaint followed, and Crime No. 70/2022 was registered on 12 August 2022 under Section 354A IPC. The complaint alleged that on 15 July 2022, between 3:30 and 3:40 p.m., when she visited the petitioner, there was an indecent touch and indecent words.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 to quash the complaint and FIR. His counsel argued that, in view of the complainant’s statement before the ILC and the closure of that matter, the police complaint, filed after about 28 days, was an afterthought meant to malign him.
What Did the Court Say?
The court dismissed the petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
On the ILC process
“Admittedly such reports would not be sufficient enough to close the criminal case unless an investigation takes place as the offence under Section 354A of IPC is a cognizable offence.”
On the delay
“Delay in lodging the complaint cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR that too at the inception stage.”
The court added that, at most, delay can be a defence at trial if a charge sheet is filed. It found the other grounds to be “more in the nature of defence in the trial.”
The petitioner’s defences were kept open, and he was given liberty to challenge any adverse report filed against him.
Learnings for Organisations
While this is a criminal matter at the FIR stage, the order is a useful reminder about how workplace and criminal processes relate.
- Internal closure is not legal closure. An Internal Committee process and a criminal investigation run on separate tracks. An internal outcome does not stop police action where the alleged conduct is a cognizable offence. Do not assure a respondent, or a complainant, that closing an internal matter ends all exposure.
- Tell complainants about all their options. A complainant may pursue the internal route, the criminal route, or both. Your process should explain this plainly and never discourage anyone from approaching the police.
- Delay in complaining is not proof of falsity. The court was unwilling to treat a 28-day gap as a reason to stop the case at the threshold. Organisations should be cautious about dismissing complaints because of when they were made, and should record the reasons for any delay as part of the inquiry.
- Handle the intersection with care. Where an internal inquiry and a police case may overlap, keep clean records and confidentiality, avoid prejudging, and take legal advice on coordination, including what can be shared.
- Respondents keep their defences. The court expressly left all defences open. Fair process means respondents get to answer the allegations, whatever the forum.
- Power imbalance deserves attention. The complainant was a junior resident working under the respondent. Reporting-line relationships are worth special care in your policies, including interim measures during an inquiry.