Abhishek Mudaliyar v. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Of P S. Thana

Heard Mr. Shubham Dev Mallick, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent-State. 2

#2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- "That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash FIR dated 14/09/2025 in crime no. 0570/2025 w/s 75(1)(iv), 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered in PS- Civil line Korba C.G. and also quashed the charge sheet (ANNEXURE P/1) against the petitioners, in the interest of Justice.

#2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Order dated 03/11/2025 whereby the Id. Judicial Magistrate First Class Korba has taken the cognizance (ANNEXURE P/1) whereby the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First class Korba has taken the cognizance of the case for the offences u/s 75(1)(iv), 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered in PS- Civil line Korba C.G.

#3. That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the (ANNEXURE P/2) order dated 05/12/2025, whereby the Ld. Additional Session Judge FTC Korba has framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences u/s 3(5), 75 (3), 79 Of BNS against the petitioners.

#4. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Session trial no 124/2025 pending before the Ld. Additional Session Judge FTC Korba (ANNEXURE P/3)

#5. That any other relief Hon'ble Court deems feet may also be granted."

#3. The facts of the case are that the complainant, working as an MDRT Agent under Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, lodged a complaint dated 13.09.2025 alleging sexual harassment, defamation and mental torture against the petitioners, alleging that they had insulted and humiliated her in the presence of other office staff by making indecent and derogatory comments, on the basis of which FIR No. 0570/2025 was registered at Police Station Civil Line, Korba, on 14.09.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 75(1)(iv) and 79 of the BNS. The petitioner No.1 has been 3 working as a Business Associate Manager with Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited for the past five years and petitioner No.2 has been working in the same company for the past four years. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1, in discharge of his official duties, had advised the complainant to improve her work performance, failing which her licence could be revoked, as her work performance had remained poor, and being aggrieved by the same and due to personal enmity, the complainant lodged the false and baseless complaint against the petitioners with an ulterior motive to implicate them in a criminal case and extract money from them. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation constituting any offence against the petitioners and even if the allegations contained in the complaint and FIR are taken to be true in their entirety, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 75(1)(iv) and 79 of the BNS are not made out against them. After filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Korba, has commenced the trial, which is presently pending at the stage of evidence, hence, the petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR and the subsequent proceedings pending before the learned trial Court.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present prosecution is wholly misconceived, false and an abuse of the process of law, as the FIR has been lodged on the basis of a concocted and exaggerated version arising out of a professional dispute and personal grudge between the parties. It is submitted that the allegations made by the complainant are vague, omnibus and do not disclose any specific overt act or criminal conduct attributable to either of the petitioners. The complainant had initially raised a grievance through her office email dated 28.08.2025, wherein no specific 4 allegation regarding use of any particular abusive words, indecent gesture or other criminal act by the petitioners was made, whereas subsequently, in the FIR, the allegations were materially altered and directed specifically against the present petitioners. He further submits that there is an unexplained delay of more than 17 days in lodging the FIR and that the subsequent version contains material improvements and contradictions in comparison with the office email, the FIR, the charge-sheet and the deposition of the complainant before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the alleged witnesses Deepak Rana and Ritika Panjwani were not present at the place of occurrence and, therefore, their statements cannot constitute independent corroboration of the allegations. He further submits that neither the office email nor the FIR specifies the exact words allegedly uttered by either petitioner or the specific overt act committed by each of them so as to constitute the offences alleged. It is further submitted that the prosecution has materially altered its case during the course of trial, as identical provisions were initially invoked against both petitioners, whereas subsequently Section 75(3) was retained only against petitioner No.1 and omitted against petitioner No.2, without any satisfactory explanation for such alteration.

#5. He further submits that the allegations have undergone continuous improvements during investigation and trial and that new allegations and witnesses have been introduced after the petitioners placed documentary material before the learned trial Court, which clearly indicates an attempt to fill the lacunae in the prosecution case. It is contended that the complainant had herself failed to achieve the MDRT target, whereas the petitioners had achieved the MDRT target on seven policies involving approximately Rs.5 lakh within three months, and the present complaint was lodged with an ulterior motive to cause loss of employment, reputation and professional 5 career to the petitioners. He submits that the complainant had not made any contemporaneous complaint regarding the alleged incident and that the material placed on record demonstrates that the allegations are inconsistent and unsupported by independent evidence. It is further submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of vague, contradictory, improved and unsubstantiated allegations would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly when the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out even if the allegations are taken at their face value. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, in the interest of justice.

#6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State opposes the petition and submits that the allegations made in the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the statements of the witnesses prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners are seeking appreciation of the evidence and relying upon the alleged contradictions between the office email, FIR, charge-sheet and the deposition of the complainant, which cannot be examined in detail in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations made by the complainant are required to be considered at their face value at this stage, whereas the defence taken by the petitioners that the complaint was motivated by professional rivalry or personal enmity is a matter of evidence to be tested by the learned trial Court. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have been framed and the trial is in progress. It has further been 6 stated that the matter is presently pending before the Court and the trial is in progress, with the cross-examination of the victim still continuing. Therefore, the petitioners have an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and to place their defence before the learned trial Court. The alleged delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies in the version of the complainant, presence or absence of witnesses and the documents relied upon by the petitioners are all matters requiring appreciation of evidence and cannot be made the basis for quashing the proceedings at this stage. It is further submitted that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution and cannot be invoked for conducting a mini-trial or for determining the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations. Since the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners, no exceptional circumstance warranting interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent-State prays for dismissal of the present petition and for permitting the learned trial Court to conclude the trial in accordance with law.

#7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition.

#8. From the perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet, it appears that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners alleging that they had made indecent and derogatory comments against the complainant in the presence of other office staff and had thereby insulted, humiliated and defamed her. During the course of investigation, the statement of the complainant was recorded and videographed, her statement under Section 7 183 of the BNSS was also recorded before the competent Court and the statements of other witnesses were recorded. The investigating agency, after completion of investigation, has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners. At this stage, the defence raised by the petitioners regarding the falsity of the allegations, professional dispute, delay in lodging the complaint and alleged contradictions and improvements in the version of the complainant are matters which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated upon in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations and the material collected during investigation, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, no ground is made out warranting interference with the criminal proceedings at this stage.

#9. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- 8 “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; (iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs 9 of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; (x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;””

#10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), while reiterating the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, has once again emphasized that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised with great caution, circumspection and only in exceptional circumstances.

#11. The Apex Court has held that while considering a prayer for quashing of an FIR, charge-sheet or criminal proceedings, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence collected during investigation. The scope of judicial scrutiny at such stage is confined to examining whether the allegations made in the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet, if accepted at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and make out a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused.

#12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the BNSS), cannot enter into disputed questions of fact, evaluate the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, assess the evidentiary value of witness statements, or adjudicate upon the probable 10 defence available to the accused. Such an exercise falls squarely within the province of the trial Court, which alone is competent to appreciate evidence after the parties have led their respective cases. The Apex Court cautioned that where the allegations disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences and the investigating agency has collected material in support thereof, criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold merely because the accused has raised a plausible defence or disputes the correctness of the prosecution case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) 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 sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. has not (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by refuted the accused, prosecution/complainant; and/or the material that justifiably refuted it cannot be by is by the such, the prosecution/complainant? (iv) 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? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of 11 the Cr.P.C. 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 arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]”

#13. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the allegations made by the complainant are false and motivated and that there are material contradictions and improvements in her version. However, the aforesaid contentions essentially relate to appreciation of evidence and disputed questions of fact. The alleged delay in lodging the complaint, the previous communications made by the complainant to the office authorities, the alleged professional dispute between the parties and the contradictions, if any, in the statements of the complainant and other witnesses are matters which can appropriately be considered by the learned Trial Court after the parties lead their evidence. This Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, cannot undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or conduct a mini-trial for determining the truthfulness of the allegations.

#14. It is also well settled that, at the stage of considering a petition for quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose the commission of the offences alleged. In the present case, the allegations contained in the FIR, coupled with the material collected during investigation and the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, prima facie disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners. The defence set up by the petitioners and the 12 correctness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, are squarely applicable, as the disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence are matters for consideration by the learned Trial Court.

#15. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation and the stage of the proceedings, we are of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet or the consequential criminal proceedings. It has further been stated that the matter is presently pending before the Court and the trial is in progress, with the cross-examination of the victim still continuing. The allegations cannot, at this stage, be said to be so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners.

#16. Accordingly, no ground is made out for interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law and decide the same on its own merits, without being influenced by any observation made herein. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok