Thursday’s court of sessions set aside the
The 42-year-old software engineer, Roshini Roy, had filed a criminal complaint against the French multinational company which has its local office in Talawade and 21 of its executives, for breach of trust, cheating, harassment, exploitation and coercion to resign during years. The defendants included the chairman and CEO of the group, Paul Cermelin, CEO of the company, Ashwin Yardli, chairman Shrinival Kandula and others. Roy was an employee of Kanbay Software India Ltd, acquired by Capgemini
She also alleged that with fading under the constant pressure to resign, she released her papers in May 2011. However, subsequently, at the request of a new supervisor, she asked the company to allow her. to withdraw his resignation. When the company wouldn’t allow her to do so, she brought a civil action against her, which she then withdrew on the assurance that if she did, she would be allowed to withdraw her resignation.
However, she claimed to have noticed that she was discriminated against in terms of promotion, raises and bonuses and that there was also an attempted demotion. She also complained that she had been punished on multiple occasions for a minor security breach incident that caused no loss to the company. She even lodged a complaint with the Dehu Road Police Station and the union’s Minister for Women and Children.
The JMFC court in Wadgaon Maval issued proceedings under article 204 of the CrPC for an offense punishable under articles 406, 418, 420, 506 r / w article 34 of the code, against only the three senior officers, while dismissing the complaint against the others. The three officers, Cermelin, Yardli and Kandula, represented by lawyers Harshad Nimbalkar and Shivam Nimbalkar, requested a review, asking for the procedural order to be set aside.
Lawyer Nimbalkar said: “The petitioner is CEO of Capgemini in France. He works outside Indian territory and has absolutely nothing to do with the allegations made in the complaint. He never came into direct contact with the complainant. He added that the dispute was of a civil nature and that the complainant had tried to color it with allegations of a criminal nature, pointing out that the complainant was still working at the company.
“The three agents against whom the proceedings were initiated do not fall within the jurisdiction of the court. The provision of section 202 is mandatory and the issuance of a process against agents without following the mandate of this provision has violated their substantive rights, ”he added.
Counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the request for review on the grounds of its maintainability. He argued that it is not appropriate for the reviewing court to review the order which, on its face, bears the mark of careful consideration and appears to be in accordance with the law.
The court of the hearings of SM Agarkar observed: “The plaintiff did not contest the fact that the defendant was posted in France, which is beyond the competence of the magistrate who emitted the trial. There is no doubt that the magistrate, after having questioned the complainant under article 200 of the CrPC, had directly issued a procedure without investigating by himself or directing the investigation as provided for in article 202 of the Code. .
The court also observed that the allegations made in the prima facie complaint did not constitute a countable offense, which required careful consideration of the elements before initiating the process. “It emerges from the ordinance that the magistrate did not do this exercise. This shows that the learned magistrate did not correctly assess the elements of the file and mechanically issued the process. The contested order is not viable and requires intervention. ”
When Mirror contacted Roy, she said she would file an appeal in the High Court.