The court held that reprimanding an employee for workplace discipline does not constitute an intentional insult under IPC Section 504, and quashed the chargesheet due to lack of prima facie evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The instant appeal by special leave preferred by the appellant takes exception to the judgment dated 3rd May, 2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad¹ [Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”] in Criminal Petition No. 11653 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973² [For short ‘Cr.P.C.’] preferred by the appellant, seeking quashment of the chargesheet in Case Crime No. 1771 of 2022, submitted against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³ [For short ‘IPC’] before the Court of learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.⁴ [Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”]

Brief facts:

4. Respondent No. 2 (complainant) was working as an Assistant Professor, Pediatrics in National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities, Secunderabad.⁵ [For short ‘Institute (workplace)’] On 2nd February, 2022, the complainant was called by the appellant, through his attender, to come to his chamber. During the time, appellant was discharging his duties as Officiating Director of the Institute (workplace). It is alleged that no sooner the complainant entered the chamber of the appellant, he started addressing her in a high-pitched voice reprimanding her for having filed complaints against him to the higher authority. The complainant immediately protested and apprised the appellant that as she had just recovered from Covid-19 virus and was continuously facing various medical issues, he must refrain from raising his voice at her. Immediately thereafter, her hands began to tremble and she started sweating profusely. She left the chamber of the appellant stating that she would submit a written reply in this regard.

5. The complainant filed a complaint against the appellant on the same day, pursuant to which an FIR⁶ [FIR No. 65 of 2022] came to be registered on 5th February, 2022 at Police Station, Bowenpalli, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270, 504 and 354, IPC. Investigation was commenced and statements of various witnesses were recorded. The Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet dated 27th September, 2022, against the appellant in the Court concerned for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270 and 504, IPC. It was primarily alleged in the chargesheet⁷ [Case Crime No. 1771 of 2022] that the appellant failed to provide and maintain adequate PPE kits and gloves in the Institute (workplace), which posed a great risk of spreading infectious diseases such as Covid-19. The trial Court took cognizance of the above offences and summoned the appellant. Aggrieved by the chargesheet and the cognizance taken by the trial Court, the appellant preferred a criminal petition⁸ [Criminal Petition No. 11653 of 2022] under Section 482, Cr.P.C. before the High Court, seeking quashment of proceedings sought to be taken against him in Case Crime No. 1771 of 2022.

6. The High Court, while dismissing the above criminal petition, held that there was no merit in the quashing petition filed by the appellant. It further opined that as the allegations against appellant were serious in nature, therefore, the true facts of the case required to be elicited and proved during the trial before the trial Court. Accordingly, the quashing petition came to be dismissed vide order dat