JUDGMENT :

A.S. GADKARI, J.

1. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of the First Information Report No. 347 of 2016, dated 24th August, 2016, under Sections 354-A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) registered with Bhandup Police Station, Mumbai, at the instance of Respondent No. 2, the informant.

2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Patil learned APP for the Respondent No. 1-State and Ms. Meenaz Kakalia, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

3. Record reveals that, by an Order dated 5th October, 2017, this Court had granted ad-interim relief in favour of Petitioner. By a subsequent Order dated 16th January, 2018, Rule was issued in the Petition. The adinterim relief granted by an Order dated 5th October, 2017 was confirmed as interim relief.

4. The Respondent No. 2, first informant, has lodged the crime in question on 24th August, 2016 under Sections 354-A and 509 of the IPC. It is stated in the FIR that, she is residing at the address mentioned therein along with her husband. She was working as a Center Manager in Max Life Insurance Company situated at Goregaon Link Road, Bhandup (West), Mumbai for last about one year, prior to lodging of FIR. That, her company’s Vice President (H.R.) i.e. the Petitioner herein, stays at Delhi for the office work. He intermittently come to the company’s office at the said address for office work.

That, on 20th May, 2016 at about 10.00 a.m., the Petitioner had been to the said office for meeting. After meeting at about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. in the noon, Petitioner came to the desk of the Respondent No. 2. He was continuously staring at her, so she asked him ‘How can I help you, Sir’ on this, he said that, ‘you are looking sexy and gorgeous’. On the said comment of Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 retorted to him ‘behave yourself’. Due to the said, Petitioner got angry and torn her paper nameplate which was on her desk. While leaving the said place, he threatened Respondent No. 2 by saying ‘I will fix you, bitch’ abused her and left the said place. At that relevant time, four to five of her colleagues working in the office were present there. Amongst them, Mr. Tanveer Khan and Mr. Nirmal Paul were present there. They had witnessed this entire incident.

After the said incident of 20th May, 2016, the Respondent No. 2 complained against the Petitioner with her company team through an email on 30th May, 2016 about the same. However, the company did not take any action against the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 2 therefore told to her father about the said incident and thereafter her father also complained to her company team by an email dated 11th August, 2016. Even after the said complaint of her father, her company did not take any action against the Petitioner and therefore she went to police station and lodged present crime. In this brief premise present crime is registered by the Respondent No. 2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the allegations made by the Respondent No. 2 in the present crime are fiction of her own imagination. That, the FIR is full of improvements by the Respondent No. 2 from her original Complaint dated 30th May, 2016 lodged with the company vide email for mental harassment case and grievance. He submitted that, in the said Complaint dated 30th May, 2016 for an alleged incident of 20th May, 2016 it is stated that, the Petitioner came to her work desk and tore her nameplate with an annoyed look and thrashed it in the dustbin in presence of her colleagues, hurting her self respect, dignity and ethical sentiments. That, the said version was further improved by her father in his email dated 11th August, 2016. However, in both the said Complaints, the alleged sexual remarks made by the Petitioner are absent. He submitted that, on the basis of Complaint dated