B N V Prasad Rao vs The State Of Ap
2022 Latest Caselaw 1062 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                        IA.No.1 of 2022
                               In
                    W.P.No.3103 of 2022
ORDER:

This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner

Sri P.V.Krishnaiah and learned Government Pleader for

Home.

Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner

argued the matter at length. The crux of the submission is

that this is a fit case to quash the entire FIR as according to

him none of the offences described in the FIR are actually

made out in the case. Till the matter is decided, he seeks an

interim stay.

Learned counsel submits that the complaint has been

lodged after the services of the petitioner, as an outsourcing

employee, were terminated. Therefore, he submits that it is a

motivated and biased complaint. Apart from that, he urges

that none of the ingredients of the offences for which the

petitioner is charged are actually present in the case. It is his

contention that the complaint is a 'bald' complaint, bereft of

any details. He also points out that in the complaint itself it is

mentioned that the complainants' that job was terminated

and that thereafter the complaint was lodged. He relies upon

a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in

Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati v. State of U.P. 1 to

argue that this is a fit case where the 'quash' itself should be

ordered. In the alternative, he submits that this is a fit case

in which the petitioner should be given an interim order of

protection from arrest as the entire complaint is an abuse of

the process of law.

In reply to this, Government Pleader for Home submits

that the investigation has progressed substantially and that

16 witnesses were examined. It is his submission that the

basic allegation in the complaint is about sexual harassment

at the workplace, outraging the modesty of the woman. He

reads the complaint in detail to argue that the accused also

attempted to rape the complainant and that he had behaved

indecently towards her as can be seen from the complaint. It

is also mentioned in the complaint, as per the Government

Pleader that the accused was constantly following the

complainant and demanding sexual favours. Therefore,

learned Government Pleader submits that prima facie,

sections 354, 354 D, 509 and 506 of IPC are applicable.

Learned counsel also argues that since there is a clear

averment that he attempted to rape the complainant, the

other sections are also attracted. In the alternative, he

submits that an FIR is not an encyclopedia of entire event

2022 Live Law (SC) 153

and that the investigation should be allowed to proceed to its

logical conclusion.

This Court notices that there are certain specific

allegations in the complaint. It is clearly mentioned in the

very first paragraph of the complaint that the present

petitioner has been sexually harassing the complainant for

some time. He calls her after office hours. He behaved

indecently on more than one occasion, touched her intimately

and even attempted to rape her. He also used objectionable

language in the calls. The complainant also states that he

had indecently touched the lady and thereby outraged her

modesty. Since she did not agree to the request for sexual

relationship, it is stated that her job was terminated.

While it is true that a separate Act is provided for

addressing issues of sexual harassment at workplace, it is

also clear that the said Act does not totally preclude the

lodging of a criminal complaint. It is also submitted by the

Government Pleader that the investigation has progressed. If

at all the police come to a conclusion that some of the

offences are not made, definitely they would act according to

law. That by itself is not a ground to quash the proceedings

at this stage.

Even the judgment of Shafiya Khan's (1 supra) case

relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a

judgment in which the Court had the benefit of charge sheet

and other evidence. In para 19, Hon'ble Supreme Court

noticed that the documentary evidence on record supports

her Nikah Nama was duly registered by the competent

authority and that the charge sheet filed does not prima facie

disclose how the Marriage Certificate was forged. Thereafter,

in para 20, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that

after going through the complaint on the basis on which the

FIR is registered and the other material on record, no offence

of any kind has been made out. Therefore, they felt that

continuing the proceedings is an abuse of process of law. The

fact situation in the present case is not the same. In the case

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also, great deal of delay

had occurred which was noticed by the Supreme Court. The

complaint in this case was lodged on 26.01.2022,

investigation is still in progress. Material is not available

before this Court to come to a prima facie conclusion that

absolutely no offence is made out. Prima facie, this Court

finds that the allegation of sexual harassment, indecent

behavior etc., are spelt out. This prima facie opinion is

expressed for the disposal of this application only.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and

Ors.,2 has redefined the entire law on the subject and laid

down its conclusions categorically. It was clearly held that

2 AIR 2021 SC 1918

the FIR is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all the

facts and details; and that the investigation is in progress, the

Court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the

FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation.

If after the investigation, police find that there is no

substance, they can take action under law by filing an

appropriate report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court sounded a

note of caution that an interim order of stay of investigation

during the pendency of the quash petition should be passed

with 'circumspection'. Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that

it is only in very very rare and exceptional cases, the Court

should interfere at the stage of investigation of the offences.

This judgment is of three judges of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in contradiction.

Therefore, for all the above mentioned reasons and in

view of the recent law on the subject, this Court is of the

opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any interim relief

at this stage.

This application is therefore dismissed.

Post for counters on 04.03.2022.

_________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

Date : 25.02.2022.

KLP