CHENNAI: Bringing to an end the embarrassing episode where the visuals of a lawyer in a compromising position with a woman was accidentally streamed during a virtual court hearing during the heights of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Madras High Court quashed a criminal case against the man, holding that there was no material to show that he intended to disrupt judicial proceedings.

After the video clip of the lawyer went viral on social media on December 20, 2021, a division bench took suo motu cognisance of the incident and directed the CB-CID to register an FIR. Accordingly, a case was registered under Sections 228, 292 (2) (a) and 294 (a) of the IPC, and Section 67A of the IT Act.

According to the final report filed by the police, the lawyer had sexually exploited the woman, who worked as his office assistant and domestic help, on several occasions. He had allegedly taken advantage of her family's financial difficulties by offering her money, new clothes, and food, said the police.

The lawyer, RD Santhanakrishnan, filed a plea seeking to quash the pending criminal case. During the hearing, his counsel, C Paul Kanagaraj, contended that even if the final report and supporting materials were accepted in full, no offence was made out against him.

He argued that the incident had taken place inside a closed room in his advocate's office and not in a public place. He also submitted that the lawyer had no intention of insulting or interrupting judicial proceedings.

After hearing the plea, Justice M Nirmal Kumar noted that virtual hearings were introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic due to restrictions on physical court proceedings and limited access to courts. It was undisputed that the petitioner was accidentally shown on the virtual platform while logging into the hearing.

Therefore, he had unknowingly disrupted the proceedings, and a private act was streamed due to a lack of technological knowledge, particularly when virtual hearings and the use of electronic devices were still at an early stage.

Noting that Section 228 IPC punishes intentional insult or interruption of a public servant, the court said there was no material to show that the lawyer intended to disrupt the proceedings or knew that his conduct would be displayed during the virtual hearing.

Regarding Section 294 (a) IPC, the court observed that the provision applies to obscene acts in public places. The lawyer had not knowingly switched on the camera, and no participant had complained of annoyance caused by the incident. The court also recalled that the division bench had earlier observed that the lawyer's act, by itself, did not constitute an offence.

On the sexual harassment charges, the court found no evidence of unwelcome physical contact, sexual overtures, demands, or remarks by the lawyer. It also found no material to establish offences under the IT Act or the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

Considering the available materials, the court quashed the criminal proceedings pending against him.