Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5173 OF 2018
Mr. Subodh Medsikar ]
Aged 55 years, Occupation – Service, ]
Residing at A/41, Nilgiri Heights, ]
Shivaji Housing Society, Senapati Bapat Road, ]
Pune – 411 016. ] … Petitioner
JUDGMENT
1. The State of Maharashtra ] Through the Office of Chief Public ] Prosecutor, the High Court at Bombay, ] Mumbai. ]
2. The Senior Inspector of Police ] Incharge of Chikhali Police Station, ] Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune. ]
3. Ms. Sheetal Devidas Gosavi ] Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicle, ] Residing at Flat No. A-1, Sahil Residency, ] B-Bldg. Sector-9, Moshi Pradhikaran, ] Chinchwad, Pune – 412 105. ] … Respondents Ms. Pinaz C. Contractor a/w. Hitekshi Y. Bhanushali for Petitioner. Mr. Rhishikesh Pethe, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.[1] & 2-State. Mr. Rushikesh G. Patil for Respondent No.3. CORAM: A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE: 9th June 2025.
JUDGMENT ( Per: A. S. Gadkari, J.):- 1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Petitioner seeks quashing of R.C.C. No. 445 of 2019, pending on the file of learned 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, District Pune, arising out of CR No. 15 of 2018 dated 17th October 2018 registered with Chikhali Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad Police Commissionerate, for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354(A)(1)(i), 354-D(1)(i), 506 & 509 of Indian Penal Code.
2) Heard Ms. Contractor, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. Pethe, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.[1] & 2 and Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3. Perused entire record.
3) Record clearly indicates that, at the time of admission of the Petition i.e. on 17th April 2023, Advocate Mr. Rushikesh G. Patil had waived notice on behalf of Respondent No.3. The note put up by the Registry dated 24th September 2024 mentions that, “Rule writ issued”. It is thus clear that, the Respondent No.3 has been duly served with the Notice of Petition.
3.1) Record further indicates that, present Petition was taken up for hearing on 14th June 2024, when none had appeared for Respondent No.3 and in order to grant an opportunity to the Respondent No.3, the Petition was adjourned. Despite service, today also none appears for Respondent No.3.
4) Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts giving rise to the present Petition can be summarized as follows:-
4.1) That, in the year 2017-18 the Petitioner was working as Assistant Regional Transport Officer in the Office of Deputy Regional Transport Office, Pimpri-Chinchwad and was looking after the day-to-day working and the operations of the Office, as per the law and Rules prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Respondent No.3 was also working in the same office, as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector eight months prior to the date of lodgment of the crime.
4.2) The Petitioner had issued four Show Cause Memos between 9th June 2017 to 11th July 2017 to the Respondent No.3 for her dereliction in duty and for not performing the duty as required under the Rules. The said Memos are annexed at page Nos. 49 to 61 to the Petition.
4.3) Respondent No.3 thereafter lodged a complaint on 11th July 2017 with the concerned Committee (Competent Authority ) established under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (For short, “the said Act”) alleging sexual harassment at working place. The concerned Authority of the employer of the Petitioner therefore formed an internal Committee constituting 7 members and conducted in-depth enquiry into the allegations made by the Respondent No.3.
4.4) The said Committee apart from recording statement of Respondent No.3 and the Petitioner, also recorded statements of other witnesses and in its report dated 16th October 2017 came to the conclusion that the Respondent No.3 had produced a bogus witness before the said Committee and tried to mislead it. The Committee therefore recommended that, strict warning be issued to the Respondent No.3.
4.5) The employer of Petitioner also conducted a further enquiry under the aegis of a Senior Officer i.e. by Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Mumbai (West). The said Enquiry Officer submitted its report dated 28th December 2017 to the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Office of the Transport Commissioner, Mumbai. In the said report, the Enquiry Officer has also recorded a finding that the complaint lodged by the Respondent No.3 was not genuine. That, the Respondent No.3 has filed false complaint, which affected the working environment in the Office. The concerned Committee had minutely scrutinized the statements of all the witnesses recorded by the earlier Committee and thereafter has reached to the said conclusion.
4.6) Record clearly indicates that, the Respondent No.3 has not challenged the said two reports of the concerned Committees and in fact has accepted the same.
4.7) In this background on 17th October 2018 the Respondent No.3 lodged the present crime with the Respondent No.2. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that, in the month of May 2017 the Petitioner called the Respondent No.3 in his chamber and when she was sitting in front of him, he took her photograph in his mobile phone. The Respondent No.3 therefore questioned him about the said act. At that time, the Petitioner also took photograph of other officer Prasad Pawar. It is alleged that, the Petitioner also threatened Respondent No.3 to ‘show his power’ as the Respondent No.3 has lodged complaints against the Petitioner with higher Authorities. It is alleged that, the Petitioner used to harass the Respondent No.3 on various counts. That, when the Respondent No.3 used to be alone in the Office, the Petitioner came near her and touched her. The Petitioner also used to stare at the body of the Respondent No.3, with ill eye and used to blink his eyes to her. On 21st August 2017 the Petitioner held the hand of Respondent No.3 and when she resisted, he threatened her that, he would ruin her carrier and leched at her. The Petitioner used to harass Respondent No.3 for no reason. It is stated that, on 9th June 2017 on the basis of a complaint made by learner licence holder namely, Mr. Swapnil Udhane, the Petitioner issued one memo to the Respondent No.3. Again on 4th July 2017 for the same reason, he issued memo to her. The Petitioner used to behave in such a manner that the body of Respondent No.3 would touch him. The Respondent No.3 has narrated various alleged instances of harassment by the Petitioner. It is lastly stated that, for the acts of Petitioner, the Respondent No.3 has lodged a complaint with the Vishakha Committee of her establishment, however she did not receive the final report of it till lodgment of crime. In this brief premise, present crime is registered.
5) It be noted here that, a bare perusal of First Information Report dated 17th October 2018 would indicate that, except making a passing reference about the complaint lodged by her with the Vishakha Committee, it is absolutely silent about the report dated 16th October 2017 given by the Committee constituted under the said Act.
6) A bare perusal of First Information Report would indicate that, the statements made therein by the Respondent No.3 are exaggerated and the alleged act committed by the Petitioner i.e. outraging modesty of the Respondent No.3 was not possible in the presence of various other employees, present at the relevant time in the concerned Office.
7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, while enumerating the powers under Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in para No.102 has observed as under:- “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 series 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 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 and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 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 noncognizable 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 concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, 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.."
7.1) According to us, the facts mentioned hereinabove would attract clauses 5 & 7 of the aforesaid paragraph No.102. In view thereof and according to us, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner would amount to sheer abuse of process of law and harassment to the Petitioner and therefore the case i.e. R.C.C. No. 445 of 2019 pending on the file of learned 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, District Pune, arising out of CR No. 15 of 2018 dated 17th October 2018 registered with Chikhali Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad Police Commissionerate, for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354(A)(1)(i), 354-D(1)(i), 506 & 509 of Indian Penal Code, deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
8) Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
9) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )
SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN