Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ******* (Sl No.361) Court No. - 78 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111436 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13077 of 2017
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Shri Yamuna Prasad Shreshtha And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singhal(Senior Adv.),Priyanka Midha,Ram M. Kaushik,Shivendra Raj Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Karuna Shankar Shukla,Lal Ji,Ram Chandra Solanki,Sanjay Kumar,Surendra Madhukar Godbole Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Shivendra Rai Singhal, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 despite the instant matter was listed peremptorily, granting various opportunities to the opposite party no.2 to appear in the instant case. The instant case is pending since 2017, so the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 3. The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the further proceedings of Case No. 14020 of 2016, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in Charge Sheet No.119 of 2016, Uttar Pradesh under section 354 and 354B IPC. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the opposite party no. 2 was the employee of the Company, i.e. Attero Reycling Private Limited, NOIDA. The applicant no. 2 is the HR Manager of the Company and the applicant no. 2 is the Reporting Manager of the said Company. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that assuming all the allegations as made in the instant FIR to be true for the sake of arguments, (though empathically denied) no offence whatsoever is made out under sections 354 and 354B IPC for which the applicants have been summoned by the impugned summoning order dated 04.07.2016. It is further submitted by the applicants that summoning order dated 04.07.2016 has been passed in mechanical manner, without considering to the facts of the case, the practice which has been deprecated by this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court repeatedly. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that services of the opposite party were terminated by the Company on 11.01.2016 as she was not performing her duties as per the requirements of the Company. Being aggrieved by the same as referred in the FIR, the opposite party no. 2 has sent an E- mail on 12.01.2016 to the applicant no. 2. In the said E-mail dated 12.01.2016, nothing has been referred with regard to the allegations as made in the FIR with regard to any undue sexual favors sought by the applicant no.1. It is also contended that there is no specific allegations against the applicant no. 2 at all. Even a second E-mail was also sent on 19.01.2016, where also she does not make out any allegation rather she wanted to clear all her arrears of salary etc. to be paid immediately. Subsequent thereto after about more than one month, the instant FIR has been lodged making out a concocted story of demand of sexual assault by the applicant no. 2. Had there been any such allegation against the applicant no. 2, the same ought to have been reflected in the E- mails sent by the opposite party no. 2 to the applicant no. 2 on 12.01.2016 and 19.01.2016. 6. It is further submitted that Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 provides the specific procedure for making out the complaint, and inquiry, in case of nay of any sexual harassment at work place, no such procedure has been followed by the opposite party no. 2 before lodging of the FIR against the applicants, specifically when no overt act has been attributed to any of the applicants in the FIR as well as in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. The dispute between the parties were primarily with regard to the arrears of salary etc. after she was terminating from the service by the applicants, for which by making out the concocted story of demand of sexual favors by the applicant no.l, the instant FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2. In view of the above circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that though from the proposal of entire record the offence under section 354 and 354 B against the applicants may not be made out, however, definitely, some other offences under section 354A (II) and 509 IPC are attracted in this case. 8. Therefore, learned A.G.A. oppose the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings of the case, however, he do not oppose the prayer for quashing of the summoning order and the charge sheet for the offence under section 354 and 354B IPC as same are not made out as per the allegations made in the instant FIR and the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the record, it is undisputed fact that in the instant case, the opposite party no. 2 was the employee of the Company, i.e. Attero Reycling Private Limited, NOIDA. The applicant no. 2 is the HR Manager of the Company and the applicant no. 2 is the Reporting Manager of the said Company. The E-mails written by the opposite party no. 2 with regard to the allegations asking the opposite party no. 2 to do extra works in company and further to deliver arrears of salary, both the e-mails are written by the opposite party no. 2 after the alleged incident, on 12.01.2016 and 19.01.2016 and there is no whisper with regard to the incident as alleged in the FIR. 10. Section 354 and Section 354-B read as under: " Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with assault or criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty. It is a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine. Specifically, it covers situations where a person assaults or uses criminal force against a woman with the intentiontent to outrage her modesty. It is a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine. Specifically, i, or knowledge that it is likely, to outrage her modesty. Section 354B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of assault or use of criminal force to a woman with the intent to disrobe. It specifies that any man who assaults or uses criminal force on a woman, or abets such an act, with the intention of disrobing her or compelling her to be naked, is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than three years, which may extend to seven years, and also to fine." 11. From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, none of aforesaid section is attracted in the instant case. In the instant case, charge sheet was filed for the offence under sections 354 and 354B IPC only and by the impugned summoning order dated 04.07.2016, learned Magistrate has mechanically summoned the applicants without application of mind or even recording its satisfaction as to whether offences for which the charge sheet has been filed are actually made out against the applicants. Earlier, the applicant no.
Decision
2 has approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 4781 of 2016 which was disposed of by this Court vide order 01.03.2016 directing that the applicants shall not be arrested till the investigation is completed. 12. Since admittedly, the charges for which the charge sheet has been filed against the applicants are not made out and the impugned summoning order is a mechanical order, without application of mind, in view thereof and considering the totality of circumstances, the entire proceedings of the instant case is not sustainable against the applicants. Thus, the instant application deserves to be allowed. 13. In view of the above, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the entire proceedings of Case No. 14020 of 2016, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in Charge Sheet No.119 of 2016, under section 354 and 354B IPC are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Monika . (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad