• Ravi Shankar S/o Balkeshwar Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o A - 1 v. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6756-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1409 of 2017 • Ravi Shankar S/o Balkeshwar Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o A - 1, Savitri Nagar Colony, Jindal Power Limited Tamnar, Raigarh - 496108 Chhattisgarh Presently Posted as Vice President HR Jindal Power Limited Tamnar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2. Tripti Das D/o Shri J.K. Das, aged about 25 years, R/o House No.1118, Near Satbaniya Mandir Devri Khurd, Bilaspur, Thana – Torwa, Tahsil and District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, --- Respondents AND CRMP No. 1433 of 2017 • Shashikant Prasad S/o Shri Naresh Prasad, Aged About 44 Years, R/o J P L Colony Tehlirampur Post, Tehlirampur, Police Station Tamnar, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Presently Posted as Deputy General Manager (HR and ES) Jindal Power Limited, Tamnar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.02.07 17:43:06 +0530 2 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer Police Tamnar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2. Tripti Das D/o Shri J.K. Das, aged about 25 years, R/o House No.1118, Near Satbaniya Mandir Devri Khurd, Bilaspur, Thana – Torwa, Tahsil and District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, --- Respondent For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
contended that the action of the complainant prima facie goes to show the misuse of the process of law and vitiate the criminal proceedings. He also contended that the impugned FIR is lodged by respondent No. 2 with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance due to personal grudge against the petitioners. Therefore also offence under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC is not made out against the petitioners. Hence, the impugned FIR deserve to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. Mr. Harshwardhan, Advocate who was appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 has not appeared despite repeated calls and it transpires from the record that respondent No.2 who was impleaded under the order of the Court dated 30.09.2019, though has filed an application for vacating the interim order passed by this Court which was rejected by learned Single Bench of this Court by a detailed order dated 01.10.2019. Mr. Yogesh Netam, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Harshwardhan, Advocate submits that Mr. Harshwardhan has given NOC but inspite of the NOC being issued, respondent No.2 has not 9 engaged any counsel to contest the matters. 11. After the order dated 01.10.2019, the stay vacation applications (I.A. No.3/2017 in CRMP No.1409/2017 and I.A. No.1/2018 in CRMP No.1433/2017) were rejected by the learned Single Judge of this Court and time was granted to respondent No.2 to file reply but as on date, no reply has been filed by her or by her counsel. Further, no representation was made by her either in person or through her counsel to contest these matters, thus, the Court proceeds to hear the matters. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with these petitions. 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufÏciently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such 10 power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police ofÏcers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police ofÏcer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufÏcient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efÏcacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be 11 exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the 12 assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufÏcient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufÏcient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would 13 persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the afÏrmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arisingt therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 15. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence 14 are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” 16. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Supreme Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. 17. From perusal of the impugned FIR, it appears that the allegations relate to giving false evidence and for offence relating to documents given in evidence in the Court. Thus, no FIR except on the complaint in writing from the Court could have been registered. Even otherwise, the FIR does not disclose the ingredients of any cognizable offence under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC and is just being used as a weapon of offence against the ofÏcials of the Company, who were the higher ofÏcials of respondent No.2 who was working under them in the Company and her service was terminated by the Company on 13.06.2017, thereafter respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR against them with a malafide intention taking vengeance from them. Hence, the allegations made in the impugned FIR are absurd and do not constitute a cognizable offence. 18. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and 15 make out a case against the petitioners herein. In the case in hand, malicious prosecution was instituted by respondent No.2 against the petitioners. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned FIR No.3340050170160 dated 13.07.2017 under Crime Number 160 at Police Station Tamnar, District – Raigarh for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 354-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners is hereby quashed. 20. The petitions under Section 482 CrPC are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (Ramesh Sinha) Prakash
Arguments
: Mr. Mateen Siddique, Advocate For Respondent No.1 / : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate State General For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Yogesh Netam, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Harshwardhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Chief Justice , Judge Hon'ble Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1/State. Also heard Mr. Yogesh Netam, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Harshwardhan, Advocate who submits that Mr. Harshwardhan, Advocate has given NOC but inspite of that respondent No.2 has not engaged any counsel to contest the matter. Hence, the matters being an old one which is pending since 2017, with the consent of counsel for the parties, we proceed to hear the matters finally. 2. The petitioners have filed these petitions with the following prayer: “ It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow these petitions and quash the impugned FIR No.3340050170160 3 dated 13.07.2017 under Crime Number 160 at Police Station Tamnar, District – Raigarh for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 354A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.” 3. Brief facts necessary for the case are that the Complainant Tripti Das who was working under M/s. Superior Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd., rules with Jindal Power Limited at Tamnar with effect from 1998-2014 as Junior Engineer (HR & ES) has made a complaint before Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh and based on her complaint, a first information report (FIR) has been registered vide No.3340050170160 dated 13.07.2017 under Crime No.160 at Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Shashikant Prasad and Ravi Shankar Singh, the petitioners herein. 4. As per the prosecution story, the complainant (Tripti Das) has mentioned that she is the resident of Devri Khurd, Bilaspur, presently residing at Kosta Para, Raigarh in the house of her elder brother and in the year 2014, the complainant got appointment in Jindal Power Limited, Tamnar in the Human Resource Department. Further, in the month of January (in the second week of January) the ofÏcers of Jindal Power Limited Shashikant Prasad and Ravi Shankar (petitioners herein) on the context of and having ill-will with a bad intention have hold the hands of the complainant. The complainant is studying MBA and having four sisters and one brother. The complainant is posted as junior ofÏcer in Jindal Power Limited in Human Resource Department. Shashikant Prasad (petitioner in CRMP No.1433/2017) is the reporting ofÏcer of the complainant and while on ofÏcial duty, Shashikant Prasad, in the month of January, 2017, has tried to make pressure on her for having sexual relations with her. The complainant has tried to convince Shashikant Prasad but he did not stop and regarding this, she went to meet Senior 4 Manager Ravi Shankar Singh (petitioner in CRMP No.1409/2017), but instead of taking action against Shashikant Prasad, Ravi Shankar Singh with bad intention commented on the complainant that she is very beautiful. However, the complainant did not retaliate to that and in the month of January, 2017 i.e. second week of January, 2017 though the date is not confirmed, when the complainant was working and was performing her ofÏcial duty, Shashikant Prasad called her to his cabin and tried to molest her and also tried to hold her hand and when the complainant, retaliated, he left her and then, she came back to her seat and informed the whole episode to her co-mates / colleagues Kusum Kumari, Digvijay Singh and Arvind Upadhayay. After this incident, the mental status of the complainant was not good, as when she has informed about this incident to her mother and father, they advised her that Shashikant Prasad will become right in future, but Shashikant Prasad's behaviour did not improve and continuously, he harassed the complainant. Therefore, the complainant made a complaint on 13.07.2017. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant Tripti Das has firstly made a complaint on 10.05.2017 to the Plant Head of Jindal Steel and Power Limited, Raigarh, in which it has been mentioned that since last one month, at the place of work, the behaviour of the petitioners Shashikant Prasad, DGM (HR & ES) and that of Ravi Shankar, Vice President (HR & ES) and also Head Power Business Group, is quite unfair and the said misbehaviour is going-on / continuously. It has also been mentioned that the reporting ofÏcer of the complainant namely Sudhir Sinha came to her cabin and asked why she came late on 31st of March, 2017 and told her that the petitioners are very angry about her conduct and the petitioners also directed Sudhir Sinha to issue show cause notice to the complainant. The complainant also became perturbed after knowing that she is about to transfer to Gate No.2 in 5 Time OfÏce under the instructions of the petitioners that it is not safe for a female employee to work at a place such that Gate No.2 for gate pass work assignment. Even after knowing about the situation, the Head of the Department and the Plant Head forced the complainant to sit there, therefore, it is very difÏcult to work under her control and supervision. Thus, it was requested by the complainant to look into the matter. The petitioners vide letter dated 11.05.2017 sent a letter to the Director General (HR), Jindal Steel and Power Limited, New Delhi informing that the complainant is not at all interested in her duty and is a habitual absentee and is not obeying the company rules and conduct. In respect of the aforesaid complaint letter of the complainant dated 10.05.2017 submitted before the Plant Head, Jindal Steel and Power Limited, an enquiry committee was constituted. After due enquiry and during personal hearing of the complainant on 19.05.2017, the aforesaid committee gave its finding on 25.05.2017 that strict action as deemed fit against the complainant be taken and the committee also recommended to serve a notice upon the complainant for leaving the job. 6. The complainant apart from being a regular absentee has also manipulated her leave record and regarding this a warning letter was also issued to her. On 10.05.2017, when the complainant returned back to her duty after unauthorized absence / leave for ten days, she was called and conveyed that her services are required no longer as per clause 3 of her appointment letter. She had approached many ofÏcers including the petitioners and many local leaders for recommendation to transfer her to Raipur. Therefore, the petitioners have recommended her termination from service of the Company with immediate effect. It is pertinent to mention here that the first complaint of the complainant was in respect of mental harassment and subsequently, after coming to know about the recommendation of her termination from service, she has again made one more complaint to the higher authorities of JSPL such 6 that Station Head, JSPL, Tamnar, on e-mail ID thereby changing her complaint from mental harassment to physical harassment and alleged the charge of molestation against Shashikant Prasad and also mentioned about the petitioner inter alia that Ravishankar Prasad is very close to the petitioner Shashikant Prasad and the petitioner Ravishankar Prasad will save him. Further, it has been mentioned about the petitioners that they were very angry on her and was not ready to listen anything about the complainant and very arrogantly behaved with the complainant and also threatened to terminate the complainant and further the services of the complainant are not required. 7. An enquiry committee was constituted in respect of the allegation of sexual harassment against the allegation made by complainant Tripti Das against Shashikant Prasad, DGM (HR& ES). The enquiry committee has given its summary of findings and given its conclusion that whether Tripti Das's behaviour amounts to personal harassment, it was considered whether or not the complainant might be an only sensitive complainant and/or whether or not Tripti Das's action will be considered reasonable exercise of superior authority on balance of probabilities the investigation did not find Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad's behaviour or action amounting to any kind of harassment, sexual or mental contrary to the complaint registered by the complainant. As mentioned by the complainant Tripti Das in the interview, she was told by Ravi Shankar in her last meeting with him that her indiscipline and shady work was not accepted and her services were not required by the Department. Though no such written/formal communication on her termination was made to her, she envisaged the same from her recent argument with Mr. Ravi Shankar. Prima facie, Tripti Das's complaint about the harassment seems to be retaliation of the action by Section Head Mr. Prasad and HOD Mr. Ravi Shankar and the allegation is unsubstantiated, as no evidence of harassment was found in the case. 7 Vide order dated 13.06.2017 made by one Miss Sakshi Madan, complainant Tripti Das has been terminated from her service. After termination order, the complainant has also made a complaint before the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog, Raipur thereby mentioning the mental torture, physical harassment and termination relief may be granted. In the said complaint before the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog also there is not an iota of mentioning against the petitioners that the petitioners have done any molestation. In respect of the act of petitioner Shashikant Prasad who talked in vulgar language with the complainant and thereafter when the complainant had given letter on 31st of March, 2017, a show cause notice was issued to her and when the complainant wanted to meet the petitioners, they did not respond. From this complaint, it is apparent that the only grievance of the complainant was against the petitioner Shashikant Prasad, but there is not an iota of mentioning against the petitioners in respect of molestation. Hence these petitions for quashment of FIR against the petitioners. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the facts and circumstances narrated above and in view of the documents brought on record which are of unimpeachable character, the impugned FIR lodged against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the impugned FIR No.3340050170160 dated 13.07.2017 under Crime Number 160 registered at Police Station Tamnar, District – Raigarh for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 354A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be quashed. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned FIR and a plain reading of the same will make it evidently clear that no offence under Sections 354 and 354A read with 34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned FIR, being an absolute after thought and brainchild of complainant/respondent no.2, having no legal substance, deserves to be quashed. He further submits that even if the allegations 8 in the impugned FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, then also prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioners. He further submits the allegations against the petitioners by the complainant are an after thought, as the petitioners have taken hard step against the complainant, by which the complainant has been terminated. So, the complainant just to take revenge, filed an FIR against the petitioners and made frivolous allegation of molestation thereby alleging that the petitioner has molested her. Therefore, offence under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC is not made out against the petitioners. He contended that the allegations made in the impugned FIR are absurd and do not constitute a cognizable offence. He further