Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an Assistant Regional Transport Officer, sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him by respondent No. 3, a colleague, for offences under Sections 354, 354(A)(1)(i), 354-D(1)(i), 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered on 17 October 2018 at Chikhali Police Station. During 2017, the petitioner had issued four show-cause memos to respondent No. 3 for dereliction of duty. In response, she filed a complaint of sexual harassment with the Internal Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The committee conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on 16 October 2017, finding the complaint bogus and recommending a strict warning against respondent No. 3. A further inquiry by a senior officer also concluded that the complaint was false and had affected office environment. These reports were not challenged by respondent No. 3. Nearly a year later, she lodged the impugned FIR alleging that the petitioner took her photograph without consent, threatened her, touched her inappropriately, stared at her, and made lewd gestures. The High Court, perusing the FIR, observed that the allegations were exaggerated and inherently improbable given the presence of other employees. Noting that the complainant had suppressed the adverse inquiry reports, the court held that the criminal proceeding was malicious and amounted to abuse of process. Relying on the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, specifically categories 5 and 7, the court concluded that the FIR and consequent proceedings deserved to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and R.C.C. No. 445 of 2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, was quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Inherent Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482; Constitution of India, Article 226 - The FIR allegations of sexual harassment were found to be exaggerated and impossible in the presence of other employees, not prima facie constituting any offence - Held that where allegations are absurd and inherently improbable, the court may quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process, applying category 5 of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Paras 6, 7.1). B) Criminal Procedure - Malicious Prosecution - Ulterior Motive - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - The complainant had filed internal complaints which were investigated by two committees and found false, yet she lodged FIR suppressing these reports - Held that the prosecution was manifestly malicious and instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance, falling under category 7 of Bhajan Lal, warranting quashing (Paras 4.2-5.1, 7.1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 354, 354(A)(1)(i), 354-D(1)(i), 506 and 509 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 226 of the Constitution on the grounds that the allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, and the prosecution is malicious.
Final Decision
Petition allowed. R.C.C. No. 445 of 2019 pending before the 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, and the underlying FIR (CR No. 15 of 2018) are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 to prevent abuse of process
- Categories of cases for quashing FIR as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
- Allegations that are absurd and inherently improbable
- Malicious prosecution with ulterior motive
