Casual talks for settlement in Pachauri case: Cops tell HC

An out-of-court settlement was proposed to the victim of the alleged sexual harrassment case involving TERI's newly-appointed executive vice chairman R K Pachauri, investigators today told Delhi High Court which reserved its order on her plea in the sexual harrassment case.
The Delhi Police, which was asked to file a status report on the progress of its investigation, said that TERI Director Sanjai Joshi conceded during interrogation that he has indeed talked to victim's friend Rahul Singh for an out-of-court settlement.
The status report was filed in the matter in which the victim, a former TERI employee, has sought quashing of anticipatory bail of Pachauri in the case.

The High Court also reserved its order on the victim's plea in the sexual harrassment case.
The status report also said that TERI's area convener Reena Singh was also interrogated in her office and she had stated that she had never spoken about any settlement with Rahul Singh and was only giving her comments.
Both Joshi and Reena Singh maintained that their talks with Rahul Singh was casual, the report said.

In the report, it was clarified that Joshi was categorical that Pachauri never pressurised him to talk about out-of-court settlement.
"Director TERI Sanjai Joshi joined investigation and he was interrogated. He stated that he talked with Rahul Singh, it was a very casual conversations during his visit to his workstation in TERI. It was stated only to save the image of organisation before the media," the police said in its report filed before the bench of Justice S P Garg.

The report further said that Joshi had also stated that he has never been asked by Pachauri or any other person of TERI to talk for settling the matter and he had not pressurised Rahul Singh, who is the complainant's friend.
Police also told the court that another TERI official was out of country on an official tour and he will be examined after he returns to India.
Delhi Police also informed the bench that it will file
the charge sheet in the case within 15 days and the draft report has already been sent to prosecution branch.
During the brief arguments, senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, appearing for Pachauri, said the victim was trying to sensationalise the case and it has come on record that he has never pressurised anybody.

He said there was nothing on record to suggest that Pachauri had influenced witnesses or any other person related to the present case or interfered in the investigation.
Advocate Prashant Mendirata, appearing for the complainant, said Pachauri was heading the organization and he may have not directly pressurised anyone, but could have done so indirectly.
He said the Investigating Officer has not informed the court during the hearing on January 13, about Rahul Singh's complaint and it was only after the media reported it, the victim had filed the petition regarding Pachauri pressurising TERI officials for out-of-court settlement.
In his written reply, Pachauri has denied the allegations as "incorrect", "misleading" and "figment of imagination" of the victim and her counsel.

"The answering Respondent (Pachauri) has never exercised any pressure upon TERI and its officials. It is matter of record that answering Respondent was away from TERI from February, 2015 till July, 2015 and it was only after the permission of the Sessions Court that he was allowed to enter the office," he had said in reply to the notice issued to him on January 28.
Pachauri sought dismissal of the petition claiming that it was motivated and not maintainable in the eyes of law.
The 29-year-old female research analyst, who has now quit the organisation, had moved the application a day before the court was to pronounce its verdict on her plea seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Pachauri by a lower court on March 21 last year.

The high court had on January 13 reserved its verdict on the woman's plea seeking cancellation of Pachauri's anticipatory bail in the case.
On February 13 last year, an FIR was registered against Pachauri on charges of sexual harassment under IPC sections 354, 354(a), 354(d) (molestation) and 506 (criminal intimidation).