Bombay High Court
Raju Onkar Sandanshiv And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 10 August, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
928-appln-2402-20
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2402 OF 2020
1. Raju Onkar Sandanshiv
Age : 52 Years, Occu : Service,
R/o. : Gandhlipura, Amalner,
Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Arvind Sambhaji Kadam
Age : 54 Years, Occu : Service,
R/o. : Bangali file, Amalner,
Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.
3. Santosh Pandharinath Birhade,
Age : 45 Years, Occu : Service,
R/o. : Amalner, Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon. ... Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station
Amalner, Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Sitabai Jai Chavhan,
Age : 45 Years, Occu : Service,
R/o. : Gandhlipura, Amalner,
Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents
....
Mr. Nikhil S. Jaju, Advocate for the Petitioners
Ms. Preeti V. Diggikar, APP for Respondent No.1 / State
Mr. S.T. Mahajan, Advocate h/f Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for
Respondent No.2
....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 10th AUGUST, 2021
1 of 13
928-appln-2402-20
FINAL ORDER (Per Shrikant D. Kulkanti, J.):-
1. The applicants by invoking Section 482 of the Code of the
Criminal Procedure, moved this application for quashing of First
Information Report vide crime no. 641 of 2020 for the offence
punishable under Sections 354, 323, 304, 506 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code registered with Amalner Police Station,
District Jalgaon.
2. Respondent No.2 / original complainant has filed criminal
Misc. Application No.219 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate, First
Class at Amalner and sought directions for investigation in view of
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amalner was pleased to allow that
application by an order dated 03.011.2020. On that basis, crime
no.641 of 2020 came to be registered at Amalner Police Station on
10.09.2020.
3. In view of the above, the applicants are before us.
4. Heard Mr. Nikhil S. Jaju, learned counsel for the applicants,
Ms. Preeti Diggikar, learned APP for respondent no.1 / State and Mr.
S.T. Mahajan, learned counsel holding for Mr. P.B. Patil, learned
counsel for respondent no.2 / original complainant.
2 of 13
928-appln-2402-20
5. Mr. Jaju, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that
respondent no.2 / original complainant is serving as Sweeper in the
Municipal Council, Amalner. Applicant no.1 is a Supervisor and
applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the Sanitary Inspectors, serving with
Municipal Council, Amalner. Mr. Jaju, learned counsel for the
applicants vehemently submitted that alleged offences are not at all
attracted against the applicants. He submitted that even for the sake
of argument, and without admitting anything, if the allegations
levelled in the complaint are accepted, offences punishable under
Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code do not make out. The original complainant has made false
allegations with mala fide intention and with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the applicants in order to settle down the
private and personal grudge. The allegations levelled against the
applicants are vague. No specific role is attributed against them.
6. Mr. Jaju submitted that the husband of respondent no.2 was a
member of Municipal Council, Amalner. Respondent no.2 wanted
salary without doing any work under the garb of her husband
happened to be ex-member of Municipal Council. She tried to put
pressure on the applicants and even restrained them from
discharging their official duty. Respondent no.2 was in habit to
remain absent on work. She wanted that applicants to record her
3 of 13
928-appln-2402-20
presence so that she may get her salary. The applicants did not
succumb to illegal demand of respondent no.2 and her husband.
Respondent no.2 and her husband abused to the applicants. There
are reports against respondent no.2 about her absence from duty.
Respondent no.2 when served with a notice, she got angry and
abused applicant no.1 Her husband also abused applicant no.1 and
obstructed him from discharging the duty. Applicant constrained to
submit report to Chief Officer about the same and on that basis,
Chief Officer has reported the incident to the Police Inspector,
Amalner and non cognizable case came to be registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 186 and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code. Thereafter, offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code
came to be registered against the husband of respondent no.2.
7. In order to give counter blow to the cases filed on behalf of the
applicants, respondent no.2 has filed a complaint alleging about the
incident dated 10.09.2020 about 7.30 a.m. when respondent no.2
came to mark her presence on duty alongwith her husband. It is
alleged that applicant no.1 objected the presence of complainant's
husband and thereafter, applicant no.1 caught hold of complainant's
hand and outraged her modesty. Her husband intervened when
applicants alleged to have beaten her husband by kicks and fist
blows. Such type of incident never happened. There is no prima facie
4 of 13
928-appln-2402-20
case against the applicants. No purpose would be served to proceed
with the prosecution. It would be an abuse of the Court process. Mr.
Jaju, learned counsel for the applicants placed his reliance on
following two citations:
(1) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others
reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604.
(2) Niloufer Irani and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
and anr. reported in 2008 (2) BOM. C.R. (CRI) 751.
8. Mr. Jaju, learned counsel for the applicants by taking help of
above said citations, argued that no cognizable offences made out in
the F.I.R against the applicants. The F.I.R. needs to be quashed.
9. Per contra, Ms. Preeti Diggikar, learned APP for respondent
no.1 / State submitted that if allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are
taken at their face value, the cognizable offences are disclosed. It is
the case of sexual harassment at workplace. The allegation is of
serious nature. The specific role of applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 is
disclosed in the F.I.R. The complainant / respondent no.2 was
harassed even prior to the incident. It is not a fit case to quash the
F.I.R. having regard to the serious nature of allegations and that too
sexual harassment at work place.
5 of 13
928-appln-2402-20
10. Mr. S.T. Mahajan, holding for Mr. P.B. Patil, learned counsel for
informant / respondent no.2 made indistinguishable submissions. He
submitted that the complaint lodged by respondent no.2 is
containing serious allegations. The allegations levelled in the
complaint clearly constitute cognizable offence. Respondent no.2 was
mentally and physically harassed at work place. No case is made out
by the applicants to quash the F.I.R.
11. The law on quashing of first information report is settled in
view of the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others (supra). The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has set out the categories of cases in which
the inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code can be exercised. In this regard, Para 102 of the Judgment is
important, which reads thus:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a serious of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
6 of 13
928-appln-2402-20
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
(1) Whether the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, 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 the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate, as contemplated under
section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned
(under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the
7 of 13
928-appln-2402-20
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act
concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance
of the aggrieved party.
(7) 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."
12. In case of the State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswami, reported
in (1997) 2 SCC 699, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that-
"7. ... In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue
would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the
ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers,
both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a
salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding
ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled
object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the
material on which the structure of the prosecution rests
and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the
proceeding in the interest of justice."
8 of 13
928-appln-2402-20
13. Now coming back to the factual scenario in order to consider
the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. made by the applicants. It is an
admitted position that applicants and respondent no.2 / original
complainant are in service with Municipal Council at Amalner.
Applicant No.1 is serving as Supervisor and applicant nos. 2 and 3
are serving as Sanitary Inspectors. Respondent no.2 is serving as
Sweeper. It is also evident from the record that there were
complaints against respondent no.2 / original complainant about her
absence from duty. Her work was not satisfactory. The copies of
complaints are placed on record from page nos.35 to 44.
Furthermore, one F.I.R. as wells as one N.C. report dated 10.09.2020
seem to have been registered against the husband of respondent
no.2.
14. It is important to examine the F.I.R. in question registered
against the applicants. The F.I.R. vide crime no.641 of 2020 came to
be registered with Amalner Police Station against the applicants for
the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code on 04.11.2020 on the basis of directions
given by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amalner. On going
through the allegations made in the F.I.R., it would reveal that even
before the alleged incident dated 10.09.2020, applicant nos. 1, 2 and
9 of 13
928-appln-2402-20
3 were harassing respondent no.2 at work place. The incident is of
10.09.2020 in the morning about 7.30 a.m. Respondent no.2 as
usual came to her work place to discharge her duty. She was
accompanied by her husband, who happened to be ex-member of
Municipal Council. Applicant no.1 alleged to have asked respondent
no.2 as to why she was bringing her husband; she is in service and
not her husband. Her husband asked account for that to the
applicants when applicant no.2 alleged to have threatened to her
husband to finish him. Applicant no.1 alleged to have caught hold
the arm of the complainant / respondent no.2 and misbehaved with
her and thereby outraged her modesty and abused them. Applicant
nos. 2 and 3 pull down her husband on the ground and assaulted
him by fist blows and kicks.
15. After examining the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. very
carefully, it would reveal that the specific role is attributed to
applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3. It seems to be a prima facie case of sexual
harassment at workplace and outraging modesty of a working
woman. Though the work of respondent no.2 / complainant may not
be satisfactory, action has been taken against her by the authority.
Nobody is above the law. If the allegations levelled against the
applicants are taken at their face value, cognizable offence is
10 of 13
928-appln-2402-20
disclosed. At this stage, it is difficult to accept the argument
advanced by Mr. Jaju, learned counsel for the applicants that
respondent no.2 has filed false case against the applicants in order to
settle down individual grudge and the proceedings is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
applicants.
16. We have also gone through the citation in case of Niloufer
Irani and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. (supra). In the cited
case, there were no allegation of sexual harassment against the
petitioners. Only allegation made against the petitioners is failure on
their part to take immediate cognizance of the complaint regarding
sexual harassment. The committee for sexual harassment at
workplace was not constituted. The facts of the case in hand are
distinguishable. In the case at hand, not only there are specific
allegations of sexual harassment at workplace against the applicants,
but also there is specific role attributed to applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3.
There is specific allegation against applicant no.1 for outraging
modesty of respondent no.2 / complainant at workplace. If the
allegations levelled against the applicants are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie constitute cognizable
offence against the applicants. The allegations made in the F.I.R if
11 of 13
928-appln-2402-20
uncontroverted, prima facie discloses commission of cognizable
offence. As such, the investigation by the Police officer under section
156(1) of the Cr. P.C. is necessary.
17. There seems to be sufficient ground against the applicant to
initiate criminal proceedings. There is no material which may speak
that criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants is mala fide
and/or proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive
for wrecking vengeance on the applicants. The defence tried to be
putforth can not be entertained at this stage. The exercise of power
under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. is an exception and not the rule. Power
should be exercised ex debito justitae to prevent the abuse of the
process of the Court but not to stifle legitimate prosecution.
18. Having regard to the above reasons and legal position made
clear in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lala
(supra), it is not a fit case for quashing of the first information report
registered against the applicants at Amalner Police Station. As such,
we are not inclined to quash the first information report.
19. In view of the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the
following order:
12 of 13
928-appln-2402-20
ORDER
(i) The Criminal application stands dismissed.
[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ] [ V. K. JADHAV ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S.P. Rane
13 of 13
