Bombay High Court
Narendra Kumar Santraj Sharma vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 16 January, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:459-DB
1 apl365.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.365 OF 2024
Narendra Kumar Santraj Sharma,
Aged 39 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o Gangsari, Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh. .... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1) State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Achalpur, Tq.-Achalpur,
District - Amravati.
2) Sau. Anushka Vijay Belokar,
Age 46 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o 14, Sadanand Nagar, Near
Swamvar Lawns, Tq. - Achalpur,
District - Amravati. .... NON-APPLICANTS
________________________________________________________________
Mr. S.A. Kanetkar, Counsel for the applicant,
Mr. H.R. Dhumale, Addl.P.P. for non-applicant No.1,
Mrs. Kirti Deshpande, Counsel for non-applicant No.2.
________________________________________________________________
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 02-12-2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT : 16-01-2025
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties.
2 apl365.24.odt
2. The applicant seeks to quash the First Information Report (for
short- 'FIR') dated 29-04-2021 in Crime No.125/2021 registered at
Achalpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A
and 354-D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short -' IPC'), filing of the
charge-sheet bearing No.31/2021 and registration of the Regular Criminal
Case (for short- 'RCC') No.184/2021 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Achalpur pursuant the said FIR.
3. The facts of the case are as under :
(a) The applicant was working as a Joint Manager at Finlay Mill,
Achalpur, District - Amravati, which is a Government of India undertaking
(for short,-"Mill"). Non-applicant No.2 also works as a Training In-charge
in Mill in the Training Department.
(b) On 29-04-2021, non-applicant No.2 lodged a report against
the applicant, alleging that the applicant intentionally harassed her; he
would look at her with evil eyes and abuse her with filthy words, thereby
making her ashamed of herself. He also used to tell her that she looks
sexy in a saree.
(c) Based on the complaint, an offence was registered against
the applicant vide Crime No.125/2021.
4. Mr. S.A. Kanetkar, learned Counsel for the applicant, vehemently
contended that the applicant has not committed any offence, but he has
3 apl365.24.odt
been falsely implicated in the present crime as the applicant had made a
complaint against non-applicant No.2 with the Higher Authorities, for
slapping him, by her on 23-04-2021. To retaliate, non-applicant No.2
made a false complaint against the applicant. Based on the said complaint,
the authorities conducted the enquiry through the Internal Complaint
Committee (for short, "ICC "), which deals with complaints regarding
harassment of women in the workplace. Also, the seven-member
committee conducted a departmental enquiry, headed by an assistant
manager and the head of the HR department. He drew our attention to
both enquiry reports and submitted that in both enquiries, the applicant
was exonerated from the allegations made against him by non-applicant
No.2, which were not proved. The Enquiry Committee, headed by the
Assistant Manager and the Head of the H.R. Department, observed that
"non-applicant No.2, by taking undue advantage of being a lady, had filed
a false report and exonerated the applicant." Therefore, he submitted that
in view of the mandate laid down in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari
v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eow, CBI and Another, (2020) 9 SCC , it is a
fit case to quash and set aside the first information report and the further
proceedings initiated against the applicant.
Lastly, he contended that the allegations in the FIR are vague and
omnibus, and, therefore, no ingredients of the offence have been made
out against the applicant. Hence, he has urged that this is a fit case to
quash the FIR and criminal proceedings.
4 apl365.24.odt
5. Per contra, Mr. H.R. Dhumale, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for non-applicant No.1/State and Mrs. Kirti Deshpande, learned Counsel
for non-applicant No.2, resisted the application on the ground that
allegations made in the FIR and statements of the witnesses prima facie
denote that the applicant was harassing and stalking to non-applicant
No.2. Therefore, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the
applicant. They further contended that there was sufficient material
against the applicant to show that he was involved in the crime; hence,
they urged the rejection of the application.
6. We have considered the parties' rival contentions and perused the
first information report, charge-sheet, and decision in the case of Ashoo
Surendranath Tewari (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the
applicant.
7. At the outset, it appears that the applicant was working in the Mill
as Joint Manager (Technical), and non-applicant No.2 was working under
him in the Training Department as Training In-charge.
8. It further appears from the FIR and the statements of witnesses that
on 23-04-2021 at about 3.30 p.m., when the applicant was passing nearby
to his office/chamber, at that time, non-applicant No.2 went towards him
and suddenly gave two slaps on his face/cheek. The witnesses present
there caught hold of both. Non-applicant No.2 was not feeling well and,
therefore, she was taken to the hospital.
5 apl365.24.odt
9. On the next day, i.e. 24-04-2021, the applicant filed a complaint to
the General Manager about the said incident. Accordingly, the General
Manager constituted the Seven-Member Committee headed by the
Assistant Manager and six others. After conducting the enquiry, the
Committee held that "It is clearly proved from the statements recorded
before the enquiry committee that Anushka Belorkar (i.e.-non-applicant
No.2) by taking undue advantage of being a lady, on 29-04-2021, has filed a
false report before the General Manager and all the enquiry proceedings,
evidence and charge-sheet proves the report filed by Narendra Sharma (i.e.
the applicant) on 24-04-2021 to be true and hence, all the members of the
enquiry Committee comes to the conclusion and declared that the report
filed before the General Manager by non-applicant No.2 against the applicant
is absolutely false."
10. After the incident dated 23-04-2021 and the applicant's filing of the
complaint with the higher authorities on 24-04-2021, on 28-04-2021, she
filed a complaint against the applicant before the 'ICC' and filed the
impugned FIR dated 29-04-2021.
11. It further reveals that the 'ICC also conducted the enquiry and held
that -
"(1) the allegations of sexual harassment made by Mrs. Anushka Belokar
against Shri Narendra Sharma are not proven.
6 apl365.24.odt
(2) the allegations of making sexual/foul remarks by Mrs. Anushka
Belokar against Shri Narendra Sharma are also not proved",
and therefore, held that "the allegations made against the applicant was
not proved and hence, he was not found guilty."
The 'ICC' further recommended that, -
"(1) as the allegations made against Shri Narendra Sharma are not proven,
Shri Narendra Sharma may be exonerated from the said allegations,
(2) the ICC is of the opinion that an awareness programme of the
Sexual Harassment Act is needed in the Mills/Organisation".
12. It is pertinent to note that non-applicant No.2 in the complaint
alleged that since August 2017, the applicant intentionally harassed her;
he would look at her with evil eyes and abuse her with filthy words,
thereby making her ashamed of herself. He also used to tell her that she
looks sexy in a saree and tried to stalk her. However, till the applicant filed
the complaint against her on 24-04-2021, she had not made any
complaint against the applicant to any superior authority nor made any
communication to anyone, but for the first time, when she slapped the
applicant. The applicant made a complaint against her; thereafter, only to
retaliate, she filed the complaint with the higher authority and lodged a
report at the police station on 29-04-2021. She has not made any other
allegations against him except for the above-said averment.
7 apl365.24.odt
13. Perusal of the statements of other employees of the Mill, i.e.
Kamlesh Gadge, Sagar Gadhave, Yogesh Nimje, Pranali Balapure, Pushpa
Hirpurkar and other witnesses, none of the witnesses have corroborated
or supported the version of non-applicant No.2. Though, they have
narrated the incident dated 23-04-2021 and stated that thereafter they
came to know that the applicant was harassing and stalking non-applicant
No.2 as alleged above, however, none of the employees had witnessed the
same at any point in time nor stated in their statements about the same.
On the contrary, their statements reflect that on 23-04-2021, when the
incident occurred, non-applicant No.2 gave two slaps on the cheek/face of
the applicant. Had it been the fact that since August 2017, as alleged, the
applicant was harassing and stalking non-applicant No.2, then certainly
she would have made a complaint about the same to a higher authority or
lodged a report against the applicant. Likewise, the employees in the Mill,
i.e. the witnesses, would have also stated the same, but none of the
witnesses has corroborated or supported the version of non-applicant No.2
and only after filing the complaint by the applicant against non-applicant
No.2, she made a complaint against him at the higher authority and
lodged a report at the police station.
14. In the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court referred to paragraph '38' in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal v.
State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581' ',. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble Apex
8 apl365.24.odt
Court, after considering the various judgments, culled out the ratio of
those decisions in para '38' and has held if the parameter in para
No.38(vii) had been applied, then on a reading of ' CVC' report (in this
case the 'ICC' report) on the same facts, the appellant should have been
exonerated. The chances of conviction in criminal trials involving the
same facts appear to be bleak. Therefore, the appellant therein was
discharged from the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Paragraphs '38'
and '39' of the said judgment read thus -
"38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can
broadly be stated as follows:-
(i) Adjudication proceeding and criminal prosecution
can be launched simultaneously;
(ii)Decision in adjudication proceeding is not
necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii)Adjudication proceedings and criminal
proceedings are independent in nature to each other;
(iv)The finding against the person facing prosecution
in the adjudication proceeding is not binding on the proceeding for
criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceeding by the Enforcement
Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to
attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution
or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(vi)The finding in the adjudication proceeding in
favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend
upon the nature of the finding. If the exoneration in the
adjudication proceeding is on technical grounds and not on merit,
the prosecution may continue and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where
the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all, and the person is
held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and
circumstances cannot be allowed to continue with underlying
principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.
39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as
to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceeding, as well as
the proceeding for prosecution, is identical and whether the
exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication
9 apl365.24.odt
proceeding is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no
contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication
proceeding, the trial of the person concerned shall be in abuse of
the process of the court."
15. In the case at hand, initially, the Committee headed by the Assistant
Manager, H.R. Department, with six others, categorically held that " non-
applicant No.2 filed a false report on 29-04-2021 against the applicant,
and the applicant was exonerated in the said enquiry". Similarly, after
considering the detailed enquiry, the 'ICC' held that "the allegations
against the applicant were not proven, and he was exonerated from the
allegations". It is to be noted that the facts alleged in the complaint
before the General Manager as well as in the first information report are
identical and, therefore, in our opinion, the case in hand is squarely
covered by the dictum laid down in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari
(supra).
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs.
Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335, has laid down
guidelines to be adhered to while exercising the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With regard to the
facts, we find that the applicant's case would fall under guideline Nos.
(i), (iii) and (v), which read thus:
i) where the allegations made in the First Information Re-
port or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie con-
stitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
10 apl365.24.odt
ii).........
iii) 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 nor
make out a case against the accused;
iv)...............
v) 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;
17. Thus, it is evident that though according to non-applicant No.2, the
applicant was harassing and stalking her since August 2017, till, she did
not make any complaint against him to the higher officer or at the ' ICC'
when she claimed herself as an activist and representative of the staff.
She has not assigned any reason for belatedly lodging the first information
report. A bare perusal of the allegations in the complaint prima facie do
not disclose that non-applicant no.2 has made any specific allegation
against the applicant of harassing her or stalking her. The first information
report and the statements of the witnesses recorded do not show that the
applicant was harassing or stalking non-applicant No.2, as alleged. No
specific allegation appear against the applicant, constituting the offence
punishable under Sections '354-A and 354-D' of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegations made against the applicant are vague and omnibus. On
the contrary, it seems that on 24-04-2021, the applicant lodged the
complaint against non-applicant No.2 with the higher authority and,
11 apl365.24.odt
therefore, to retaliate, the possibility of implicating the applicant in a false
complaint to create pressure on him cannot be ruled out.
18. To sum up, it appears that the allegations made against the
applicant are general and vague, which do not prima facie constitute any
offence as alleged by non-applicant No.2. Therefore, considering the facts
of the case, findings recorded by 'the committee' headed by the Assistant
Manager, H.R. Department and 'ICC' as well as the mandate laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, it appears that the applicant has made out a case
to invoke the inherent powers of this Court. Facing criminal prosecution is
a serious affair which one shall not be pushed into unless there is
substantial material. Merely by making general and vague allegations
that the applicant was involved in the crime without mentioning even a
specific single incident against him or by any of the witnesses, it would
not be proper to push him to face the trial.
19. In the background above, we deem it appropriate to quash the
proceedings initiated against the applicant. As a result, the application is
allowed as prayed. The First Information Report vide Crime No.125/2021
registered with Achalpur Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 354-A, 354-D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and filing of the
charge-sheet in Crime No.125/2021 and registration of the Regular
Criminal Case No.184/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First
12 apl365.24.odt
Class, Court No.3, Achalpur pursuant to the FIR are hereby quashed and
set aside. Inform the trial Court accordingly.
20. The application, if any is pending, stands disposed of.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
adgokar
Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/01/2025 18:33:17
