Pramod s/o. Damduji Dahat v. The State of Maharashtra and anr
Case Details
31.Cri. Appln. No.4284.2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4284 OF 2019 Pramod s/o. Damduji Dahat ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondents Mr.H.V.Patil, Advocate for applicant Mr.V.N.Patil-Jadhav, APP for respondent no.1 Mr.A.G.Vasmatkar, Advocate for respondent no.2 ---- ---- CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI AND R.M.JOSHI, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 06, 2023 ORDER (PER R.M.JOSHI, J.):- This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of
Legal Reasoning
Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.122 of 2019 registered with Vazirabad Police Station, Dist. Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code so also the criminal proceedings, i.e. R.C.C. No.945 of 2019, pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.8, Nanded. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned APP for respondent no.1 and learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2 31.Cri. Appln. No.4284 3. The applicant is working as an Electric Inspector with the Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Nanded, wherein the respondent no.2 is working as a Junior Clerk. The respondent no.2 lodged FIR dated 25.03.2019, with Vaziarabad Police Station, Nanded, alleging that on 19.03.2019, at around 5.30 p.m., near the gate of Prison at Nanded, the applicant called out to her and thereafter, made some obscene gestures and ogled at her and thus, outraged her modesty. The applicant stated that all senior officers are under his control and that had she fulfilled his wish and demand, she would not be in such a situation. The applicant allegedly threatened her and her husband for raising grievance against him before the higher authority. On the basis of this information, the afore-stated crime came to be registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that perusal of the FIR prima facie does not disclose any offence punishable under Section 354-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code. He drew attention of the Court to the material on record in the charge sheet, which according to him, indicates that the husband of the respondent no.2, who is a prison officer used to interfere in the official work of the applicant by visiting his office. It is also alleged 3 31.Cri. Appln. No.4284 that on 19.03.2019 itself, the applicant had lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Jail, Nanded, against the husband of respondent no.2 for visiting his office and threatening him with dire consequences in the event the salary of respondent no.2 was not paid. He submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated for taking action against the respondent no.2 for unauthorised absence and withholding her salary for absenteeism. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the FIR discloses commission of the offences, which can be proved only in the course of trial. He placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of (i) State of Punjab Vs. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63, (ii) Rupan Deol Bajaj and ors. Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and ors., AIR 1996 SC 309 and (iii) Anil B. Nadkarni and ors. Vs. Amitesh Kumar and ors., MANU/MH/0365/2001, to contend the quashing of the charge sheet will amount to scuttling the criminal process at a pre- trial stage. He also submits that the above referred decisions are distinguishable on facts. 6. Learned APP submitted that the statement of the respondent no.2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is in 4 31.Cri. Appln. No.4284 consonance with the FIR on most material facts. It is submitted that it is possible that some earlier incidents were not mentioned in the FIR but that per se does not make the report in question, unreliable. Thus, it is the contention of learned APP as well as learned counsel for respondent no.2 that it is not a fit case for causing interference by quashing of the FIR. 7. The law on the point of quashment of the FIR, by exercising powers by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is fairly settled by now. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal and ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 had given guidelines, which are not exhaustive but illustrative. The parameters laid down by the Apex Court to invoke inherent powers to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. inter alia include the following:- (i) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report 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 accused; (ii) xxxx (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission 5 31.Cri. Appln. No.4284 of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (iv) xxxx (v) xxxx (vi) xxxx (vii) 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. 8. In the present case, the FIR vaguely states that the applicant having called respondent no.2, made obscene gestures (without specifying those gestures) and ogled at her. On the other hand, the statement of respondent no.2 recorded before learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. does not disclose occurrence of the incident, as stated in the FIR. In fact, it is not even stated before the Magistrate that the applicant made any obscene gestures or that he ogled at her. The statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is entirely different from the allegations made in the FIR. This is relevant in view of the fact that there were serious disputes between the parties with regard to the action taken by the applicant against respondent no.2 for unauthorised absenteeism and non payment of salary. The statement of respondent no.2 under Section 164 of 6 31.Cri. Appln. No.4284 Cr.P.C. also indicates that she had lodged the FIR after it was revealed to her, that the applicant has lodged complaint to Prison Authorities against her husband. The charge sheet also discloses that on 20.03.2019, respondent no.2 had made complaints before various authorities, including the State Commission for Women, wherein, there is absolutely no mention about the incident allegedly occurred on 19.03.2019, as reflected in the FIR. These complaints do not indicate that the applicant had committed any offence as alleged. All that was stated therein is about the conduct of the applicant, while performing his official duties. These complaints which form part of the charge sheet do not even remotely suggest that the applicant had called upon respondent no.2 to fulfill any demand, as indicated in the report. 9. Section 354-A(1) of Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for sexual harassment if in case a man committing following acts:- (i) (ii) (iii) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or a demand or request for sexual favours; or showing pornography against the will of a woman; or 7 31.Cri. Appln. No.4284 (iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. In order to attract said offence, the accused must have had physical contact or made advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, which are absent in the present case. Further, the FIR does not reveal that the applicant had made demand or request for sexual favours, or made any sexually coloured remarks. Thus, even if the First Information Report is accepted as true, no offence punishable under Section 354-A of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. 10. Similarly, the material on record indicates that respondent no.2 had personal grudge against the applicant owing to the decisions taken by him in discharge of his duties. A perusal of the entire material on record prima facie shows that the First Information Report, is an outcome of personal vendetta alluded with malafides. As far as the judgments relied upon on behalf of the respondent no.2, are concerned, in case of State of Punjab (cited supra), it was a case where the injury was caused to seven years old child and in case of Rupan Deol Bajaj (cited supra), there were specific allegations made in report disclosing acts done by the 8 31.Cri. Appln. No.4284 accused therein. Similarly, the case of Anil B. Nadkarni (cited supra) lays down general principle that the trial Court alone would decide whether the evidence is reliable or not. In the instant case, since the report does not disclose any cognizable offence and it is an outcome of malafides, this Court cannot allow the abuse of the process of court by subjecting a Government servant to face criminal trial on the basis of unfounded allegations, which are manifestly attended with malafides. Thus, this case squarely falls into illustrations (i), (iii) and (vii) given in the case of Bhajanlal (cited supra). 11. In the circumstances, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (BB). Consequently, FIR No.122 of 2019 registered with Vazirabad Police Station, Dist. Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code so also the criminal proceedings, i.e. R.C.C. No.945 of 2019, pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.8, Nanded, stand quashed. [R.M. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] KBP