[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Divyanshu Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:82039
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4937 of 2026
Divyanshu Srivastava
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Prashant Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
2. The petition is filed with the following prayer:
"1. Set-aside the order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court-1 Gautam Buddh Nagar, under Sections 438/442 of BNSS in Criminal Revision No. 05/2023 (Divyanshu Vs State of UP & another), as well as order dated 13.12.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div)/Fast Track Court -2 Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No. 372 of 2020 (State Vs Divyanshu Srivastava), arising out of Case Crime No. 607 of 2018, under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-B, of IPC at P.S Mahila Thana, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar."
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that initially opposite party no.2 has lodged the First Information Report dated 10.10.2018 under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-B and 506 IPC with the allegation that opposite party no.2 was working with the Polester Solution and Services India Private Limited Company wherein petitioner was team leader and on 13.4.2018, opposite party no.2 was called for work discussion in Cafeteria and thereafter sexual advancements were made by petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per allegation in the FIR, informant had made a complaint to HR Director, who has stated that if you want to work with the Company you have to entertain the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under Section 354, 354-A, 354-B IPC against petitioner.
3-A. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that previously Application U/S 482 No.1826 of 2014 (Divyanshu Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another) was filed challenging the summoning order dated 1.1.2019 and the entire criminal proceedings wherein this Court by order dated 25.1.2019 has passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
By means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for quashing the charge sheet dated 02.12.2018, summoning order dated 01.01.2019 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 84 of 2019 (State vs Divyanshu Srivastava) arising out of Case Crime No. 607 of 2018, under sections 354, 354-A, 354-B IPC, PS Noida Sector 58, District Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a Sales Manager in the company. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that a complaint was made by the informant against the applicant for sexual harassment before the Internal Complaints Committee of the Company, but she has not produced any evidence to establish the allegations against the applicant and the Committee has decided the matter in favour of applicant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR has been lodged against three persons with a delay of six months. It is further contended that charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer only against the present applicant on false and concocted allegations. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing of the proceedings, summoning order and the charge sheet is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within a period of one month from today and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be considered in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."
3-B. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that thereafter petitioner had filed an application for discharge which was rejected by order dated 13.12.2022 against which revision has been filed, which has also been rejected by order dated 6.6.2025. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that opposite party no.2 was employee of the Company and was not performing well, as a result of same, several warnings were issued to the employee by e-mail, however, the employee did not improve her performance, as a result of same, FIR has been lodged against petitioner, which is an abuse of process of law.
3-C. Learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that although statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of informant are supporting the allegations in the FIR, however, there was document regarding performance of employee were given to the Investigating Officer even then charge sheet has been submitted. It is submitted that trial court as well as revisional court has failed to consider the effect of the aforesaid warning letters issued to the opposite party no.2/employee prior to lodging of the FIR and have relied upon the statements of victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. to reject the application for discharge of the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the revisional court.
4. At the stage of discharge application, it is to be seen that whether prima facie case for trial is made out. It is not in dispute that prosecution has stated in the First Information Report with regard to sexual advancement being made, which was supported by statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Once the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case then the trial has to go on. In respect of defence of petitioner that the employee has abused the process of law as she was not performing well and warning letters were issued, such are required to be considered at the time of trial by leading evidence. The aforesaid issues are by way of defence in nature, therefore, they are required to be considered and put to cross examination, prior any findings being recorded on the defence of petitioner. At this stage, this Court does not find any error in the orders impugned passed by the court concerned.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that occurrence took place on 13.4.2018 to 2.7.2018, however, the FIR has been lodged on 10.10.2018.
6. It is to be seen that opposite party no.2 was employee of the Company wherein petitioner was team leader as per First Information Report. Opposite party no.2 had made a complaint to Director (HR) in respect of conduct of petitioner. The nature of allegation are having sexual over tones. The delay in lodging of FIR would not have consequence as it is to be known fact female employee always find it difficult to file a complaint against her superior as there is always threat of dismissal from service, although the employee has taken steps then it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR, more particularly, when the complaint was made to the Director (HR) in respect of conduct of employee-accused.
7. In view of above, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
April 15, 2026
D. Tamang
