A local court on Monday dismissed a petition of alleged molestation filed by an associate professor (nursing) of Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science (IGIMS) for lack of evidence.

The complaint was filed on March 7 against IGIMS director Arun Kumar, IGIMS administrative officer KNP Chaurasia and associate professor (nursing) P. Nand Kumar.

In his order, judicial magistrate Jyoti Prakash observed that no reason has been stated by the complainant on why it took so long to file the case if the alleged incident took place between November 2011 and May 2012. The complainant appears to be educated, independent and well aware of her rights, then what made her to come up with the complaint so late, the court stated.

It added that the intention on the part of the director and the other accused persons either to insult or outrage her modesty has not been evident to attract prima facie action against them. The complainant never raised the issue before the police so there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons, it said.

The associate professor said her case was deliberately dismissed. “My case has been dismissed because of influence and pressure. I cannot understand why even after providing valid and genuine proof, my case has been dismissed. I had provided sufficient proof to the court thinking that it would take cognisance of my problems but it did not happen. Right now, I am reviewing its judgment. I will decide about further strategy after speaking to my lawyer.”

In her petition, she said that she had joined IGIMS on October 14, 2011, and a guesthouse was provided to her on October 15, 2011. The director also allegedly asked her to make a “compromise” for getting a separate quarter by November 15, 2011. In April 2012, another accused, Nand Kumar, also apparently asked her to accept the director’s demand.

In another case filed by director Kumar against the associate professor (nursing) on March 7 in connection with defamation, the same court took cognisance against her last Monday. The court said the accused intended to harm the reputation of the complainant and put him under pressure so that any administrative action was not taken by him. Complainant Kumar alleged that his image, reputation and personality had been tarnished and eroded because of false allegation by the accused.