KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.: - Heard. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. The Advocates for the respondents waive service.

2. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking to quash the First Information Report registered as the C.R. No. 206 of 2007 by N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai, against the petitioners.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the Senior Officers working in a reputed multinational company KPMG India Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are the H.R. Manager, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Executive Officer and former Director-H.R. of the said company respectively. The respondent No.2 herein joined the said company as a Director on 19th September, 2005 and continued to work till 30th November, 2006, the date when her services were terminated. On 2nd April, 2007, the respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the company making various allegations of sexual harassment against Vikram Utamsingh, Abizer Diwanji and Aneesh Maloo during her tenure in the company. It is the case of the petitioners that on receipt of the said complaint, a committee was constituted to inquire into the allegations as per the direction of the Supreme Court in Vishakha's case. The respondent No.2, however, expressed her inability to appear before the said committee and further by a letter dated 22nd May, 2007 questioned the integrity and impartiality of the members of the committee and, therefore, on that count, she did not participate in the inquiry.

4. On 16th July, 2007, the respondent No.2 lodged the said First Information Report against the petitioners herein and three others alleging sexual harassment to her by the said three persons viz. Vikram Utamsingh, Abizer Diwanji and Aneesh Maloo, and further alleging failure to take cognizance of the said complaint in that regard by the petitioners inspite of the fact that it was obligatory for them to do so in view of a decision of the Supreme Court in Vishaka's case.

5. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the contents of the said FIR even on the face of it assumed to be correct, do not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioners and the allegation of harassment is against the said three persons and not against the petitioners. The only allegation against the petitioners relates to inaction on their part with reference to the complaint alleged to have been made by the respondent No.2 and there is absolutely no fact disclosed which could reveal any offence under sections 354, 500, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code either individually or read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners or anyone of them. It is their further contention that the facts in the complaint nowhere disclose any order having been disobeyed by the petitioners and as regards the directions of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Vishaka's case, they were duly complied with and it was the respondent No.2. herself who refused to participate in the said inquiry and in any case section 188 of the Indian Penal Code does not apply to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Besides, in terms of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the question of taking cognizance of the offence alleged under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code cannot arise unless there is a complaint by the public servant whose orders has been disobeyed is filed by him in the Court. It is their further contention that taking into consideration the fact that the respondent No. 2 herself had refused to participate in the inquiry to be held by the committee constituted by the company, the impugned FIR is to be held as nothing but an abuse of process of law and that itself would justify quashing of FIR.

6. It is the case of the respondent No.2, on the other hand, that a complaint clearly discloses cognizable offence committed by the accused persons named therein. As regards the inquiry by the committee appointed by the said company, it is sought to be contended that the said committee constituted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document