SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2025 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2021]
Decided On : 02-01-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 354 and 506 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 74 and 351] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Attempt to outrage modesty and criminal intimidation – Refusal to quash charge-sheet and criminal proceedings – When considering application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. court cannot conduct a mini-trial but instead is to be satisfied that prima facie offences as alleged are made out – To apply Section 354, IPC, offence must be committed against a woman and criminal force must be applied against her with intent to outrage her modesty – Record is silent with respect to use of any force, apart from bald assertions of mental and physical discomfort caused to complainant by appellant – For mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before court – In FIR, preliminary investigation report as also concluding portion of charge-sheet, no direct allegation nor any evidence in support thereof can be found attributing intent to appellant – It cannot be said that case u/s 354 IPC is made out against appellant – Similarly, for offence of criminal intimidation to be prima facie established, intention should be clearly visible and same is to be established by evidence on record – FIR, interim investigation report and charge-sheet, do not disclose any offence having been committed by appellant – Sum total of circumstances, submissions and documents on record, do not point to appellant having committed any offence against complainant – Criminal proceedings quashed qua appellant. (Paras 10, 12, 12.3, 12.4, 13.3, 15 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal questions correctness of judgment in order dated 8th January, 2021, passed in Application u/s 482 No. 18712 of 2020 by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby appellant request to quash charge-sheet and proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 1074 of 2019 u/s 354, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was turned down.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in Application u/s 482 No. 18712 of 2020 is set aside. Ex-consequenti, criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 1074 of 2019 are quashed qua present appellant.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The instant appeal questions the correctness of judgment in order dated 8th January, 2021, passed in Application u/s 482 No. 18712 of 2020 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby the appellant request to quash the chargesheet and proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 1074 of 2019 u/s 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] was turned down.
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. The appellant and respondent no. 22 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’] are Directors in a joint concern by the name of ‘M/s LAJ-IDS Exports Pvt. Ltd.’ with the shareholding divided 3:1. Record reveals certain allegations and counter allegations in regard to mishandling of the company’s finances, however, the same are not within the scope of the present adjudication.
3.1 In July 2019, the appellant vide a communication Annexed as P-2 sought to end this partnership. However, this fact also stands disputed.
3.2 On 20th July, 2019, respondent no. 2 filed a complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Janpad - Gautambuddh Nagar, making allegations against RK Aneja (brother of the appellant and A-1 in the chargesheet) of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace as also alleged threat of murder. The complaint reads as under:
The Senior Superintendent of Police,
Janpad - Gautambuddh Nagar (U.P.)
Sir,
The humble request is that Applicant Puja D/o Late A.K. Tankha is R/o H. No. 2106 Tower Lotus bulword Sector 100 Noida P.S. 39, Gautambuddh Nagar and Applicant is working ass Director in I.D.S. Export Pvt. Ltd. House No. 208, Sector 63, Noida Company and R.K. Aneja R/o 7 Hauz Khas New Delhi are working as Director in the aforesaid company and Applicant has been working in the aforesaid company from February 2018. R.K. Aneja has been harassing and troubling the Applicant since October November 2018 and from few months R.K. Aneja has been holding hands on small works and when the Applicant works on computer while sitting then he touches the Applicant which cannot be explained by Applicant. Applicant informed this to Naresh then he said that he will make R.K. Aneja understand. Holding the hand of Applicant and touching her body in above office by the R.K. Aneja has been seen by Chaman Lal S/o Kishan Lal R/o E-1813 G.N.22, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and Savender Singh R/o I.P. Extension New Delhi. R.K. Aneja has tried to rape Applicant and upon screaming he threatened to kill her, then the Applicant pushed R.K. Aneja and escaped from there and left the company. Applicant went to police station and police officer did not lodge his complaint then the Applicant went and met Senior Superintendent of Police Gautambudh Nagar in Public Audience and gave her complaint on which no steps have been taken. Applicant is again giving this complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police.
Therefore, it is requested t you sir, that direction be given to the Station House Officer Phase-3 to lodge the first information report against the above persons and take legal actions.
Applicant
Sd/-”
3.3 A preliminary enquiry report was submitted to the competent authority on 6th August, 2019. However, on 14th August, 2019, the complainant filed an application bearing no. 457/2019 u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733 [‘Cr.P.C.’ for short] before the Chief Judicial Magistrate4 [Abbreviated as ‘CJM’] Gautambuddh Nagar alleging non-lodging of complaint as also no investigation having taken place on the representation given to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautambuddh Nagar. Relevant extract thereof is as under:
During the investigation, we spoke to both the parties and gone through all the facts and it was found that R.K. Aneja has firm in the name of “Laj Exports Limited which works in the field of Garments. The above firm was registered in the year 2005. Applicant Pooja Tankha has firm in the name of “IDS Fashions Pvt. Ltd. In the above firm Applicant and her mother are d
Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E Ltd. and Others
Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State of Maharashtra
Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill
Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 [Para 16.1] – Relied
State of A.P. vs. Aravapally Venkanna
Manik Taneja vs. State of Karnataka
Parminder Kaur vs. State of Punjab
Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Maharashtra vs. Maroti
(1) Attempt to outrage modesty – To apply Section 354, IPC, offence must be committed against a woman; criminal force must be applied against her with intent to outrage her modesty.(2) For offence of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of criminal proceedings in a civil dispute and the requirement to consider whether a prima facie case is made out and whether the proceed....
Hurt, insult, criminal intimidation and use of filthy language – There is no basis for prosecution to set forth concept of liability of employer or for overt acts of its employees – To establish ingr....
While considering discharge application, Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not – In such proceedings, Court is not to hold mini trial b....
The court established that complaints of harassment under IPC Sections 354 and 509 must demonstrate assault and intent, which were absent; thus, quashing the FIR to prevent abuse of legal process.
The court held that allegations of defamation and criminal intimidation lacked substance and failed to meet the necessary legal criteria under IPC Sections 500 and 506.
The court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner due to lack of prima facie evidence and findings of mala fide intent behind the allegations.
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes; a prima facie case must exist to avoid abuse of legal processes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.