Bombay High Court
Chandrashekhar Dattaray Hule vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 13 August, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: A. S. Gadkari, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-AS:32306-DB
sns 02-wp-576-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 576 OF 2024
1. Mr. Chandrashekhar Dattatray Hule
Age - 53 years, Occu- Secretary
R/at-Borivali, Dahisar, Borivali, Mumbai, .....Petitioner
Vs.
1. State Of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.I. Godegaon
Police Station, Dist.-Pune
(Notice to be served on the A.P.P.
High Court Mumbai.)
2. Mrs. X.Y.Z.
Through Godegaon Police Station
Tal-Ambegaon, Dist. Pune .....Respondents
Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode, with Ms. Sheetal Ubale, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Uday B. Nighot, for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Atish Kale, PC/2178, Ghodegaon Police Station Pune.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
DR NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 5th August, 2024.
PRONOUNCED ON : 13th August, 2024.
JUDGMENT :
- (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)
1) The Petitioner seeks quashing of the F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 187 of
2022, dated 3rd August 2022, registered with Ghodegaon Police Station,
Pune Rural, for the offences punishable under sections 354-A and 509 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('I.P.C.') and the subsequent criminal
proceedings arisen thereof bearing R.C.C. No. 26 of 2023 pending before
sns 02-wp-576-2024.doc
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ghodegaon, Taluka: Aambegaon, District:
Pune.
2) Brief facts of the case:
2.1) The Respondent No. 2/informant states that, she works at S.M. Joshi
Karnabadhir Niwasi Vidyalaya Narodi, Taluka Aambegaon, District Pune.
There is already a F.I.R against the founder of the institution, Mr.
Chandrashekhar D. Hule, the Petitioner herein and other accused. The
criminal proceedings arising therefrom are pending before the Sessions
Court, Khed bearing Sessions Case No. 203 of 2021.
2.2) The informant states that, in order to pressurize the informant and her
husband to withdraw the aforementioned case, the Petitioner has harassed
them in many ways. Firstly, a case relating to dishonor of cheques issued by
her husband was filed against him; Secondly, five months' salary of herself
and her husband was withheld; Thirdly, she is being sexually harassed at
her work place; Forthly, the employees are made to work night shifts and
lastly, all the employees are being forced to pay Rs.1,000/- to the institute.
2.3) She further states that, between the period of 11 th June, 2022 to 2nd
August, 2022, the Petitioner would make obscene gestures towards her like
spitting, stomping his feet, biting his lip, deliberately bumping past her
including other actions that would embarrass her. She also states that, due
to such actions of the Petitioner, the behavior of the other employees
changed towards her and her husband. The other employees ostracized her,
sns 02-wp-576-2024.doc
which deteriorated her mental health.
2.4) She has also stated that on 18 th July, 2022, when the Respondent's
husband had come to pick her and their son from the school, the school
gates were intentionally kept locked and their shifts were changed to harass
them.
3) Mr. Rajaram Bansode, learned Advocate appears for the Petitioner.
Mr. Uday Nighot, learned Advocate appears for the Respondent No.2. Mr.
Vinod Chate, learned APP represents the State.
4) Mr. Bansode argues that, the present F.I.R. is registered since the
Petitioner was released on bail in the FIR No.90 of 2021 for offences
punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 506 read with 34 of the IPC
lodged by the Respondent No.2 against him. It was purely with the view to
ensure his continued detention that, the present FIR is lodged. He submits
that, the Petitioner is not a permanent resident of the village where the
school is situated and hence, the allegations of obscene conduct and
gestures are false. There is also no independent witness to support the
prosecution case and the Petitioner is falsely implicated as accused by the
Respondent No.2. It is only because the Petitioner provided financial
assistance to the Respondent No.2's husband and sought repayment of the
said amount on account of which these allegations are made against him.
Mr. Bansode tendered across the bar findings of the Internal Complaint
Committee of the Institution constituted under the Prevention of Sexual
sns 02-wp-576-2024.doc
Harassment of Women at Work Place Act, 2013 ('POSH'). The Report of the
Committee has clearly absolved the Petitioner of the charges. Thus, there is
nothing to indicate commission of the offence as alleged and hence, he
prayed that, the FIR be quashed.
5) Mr. Nighot submitted that, the Petitioner has harassed the
Respondent No.2 with the sole intention of pressurizing her to withdraw
the FIR alleging rape and other offences. He reiterated the contents of the
FIR and submitted that, the offences are grave and hence, the Petition be
dismissed.
5.1) Mr. Chate supports the case of the Complainant and opposed the
Petition.
6) We have heard the parties and perused the material on record.
7) A plain but careful reading of the FIR does not reveal commission of
the offences as alleged. The ingredients of the alleged offences are not
fulfilled. It appears that, the Respondent No.2 has complaints about her
own service conditions and the allegations are nothing but an attempt to
take advantage of her own wrong. The Internal Complaints Committee,
upon examination of witnesses has found that, there were 16 CC TV
cameras installed at various places of the institution from the beginning and
at present, there are 32 CC TV cameras onsite. There is no material to
corroborate her allegation regarding the Petitioner harassing her in open
ground of the school. The findings of the Committee also indicate that, the
sns 02-wp-576-2024.doc
Respondent No.2 was a habitual late comer in the school which is revealed
from bio-metric machine installed for punching attendance. There is also
material to indicate that, it is only when the Petitioner sought repayment of
the loan amounts advanced by him to the Respondent No.2's husband, that
the allegations are made. The final conclusion of the report is that, there is
nothing to indicate that, she was sexually harassed by the Petitioner.
8) The ingredients of the offences as alleged in the FIR are serious. If
they were to be believed, details of the offensive instances ought to have
appeared in the complaint. There are general and omnibus allegations in
the FIR, the date and time of commission of the alleged offences is not
specified. The entire case put up by the first informant on the face of it
appears to be concocted and fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the
parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of
State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal & Ors.1. The parameters are:-
"(1) Where 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 18 do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) ........
(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
1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
sns 02-wp-576-2024.doc
make out a case against the accused.
(4) ......
(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) ........
(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."
9) In our opinion, the present case falls within the parameters no. 1, 3, 5
and 7 respectively, referred to above.
10) In its decision in the case of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.2, the Apex Court in the context of prima facie determining the veracity
of the allegations made in a FIR, has observed as follows:
"26. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for
2 2023 INSC 687, 2023 SCC Online SC 947
sns 02-wp-576-2024.doc
wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court
owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to
proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure
that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that
the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that
they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the
Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the
case over and above the averments and, if need be, with
due care and circumspection try to read in between the
lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution
need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is
empowered to take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as
the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take
for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background of
such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as
sns 02-wp-576-2024.doc
alleged."
11) The case in hand also prima facie appears to be based on
a personal vendetta against the Petitioner. Despite prosecution arising
from other FIR alleging serious offences of Section 376, etc. of IPC, is
pending, it is highly improbable that the Petitioner would continue
the offensive behaviour. The Respondent No.2 is also not seen to have
requested cancellation of bail of Petitioner or sought to invoke other
available legal measures to combat the alleged acts. Even otherwise,
this FIR suffers from lack of specifics, especially in view of the
offences as alleged. The Internal Complaints Committee has also
rendered a finding exonerating the Petitioner from alleged behaviour
after examining witnesses and other electronic evidence that does not
support the case of the Respondent No.2. Thus, the only motive of the
Respondent No.2 in filing this FIR appears to be that of settling
personal scores with the Petitioner and wreaking vengeance out of a
personal grudge.
12) In the overall view of the matter, we have no hesitation
in holding that, the allegations levelled against the Petitioner in the
FIR do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. In that
view of the matter, F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.187 of 2022 dated 3 rd
August 2022 registered with Ghodegaon Police Station, Pune Rural
for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A and 509 of the IPC
sns 02-wp-576-2024.doc
and the subsequent criminal proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 26 of
2023 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ghodegaon are
quashed and set aside.
13) The Petition is accordingly allowed.
(DR NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2024.08.13
13:10:52
+0530
