Vague allegations of harassment do not constitute a prima facie case for prosecution under IPC Sections 354-A and 354-D, especially when supported by exonerating enquiry findings.

JUDGMENT :

(Per : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The applicant seeks to quash the First Information Report (for short- ‘FIR’) dated 29-04-2021 in Crime No.125/2021 registered at Achalpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A and 354-D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short -‘IPC’), filing of the charge-sheet bearing No.31/2021 and registration of the Regular Criminal Case (for short- ‘RCC’) No.184/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Achalpur pursuant the said FIR.

3. The facts of the case are as under :

(a) The applicant was working as a Joint Manager at Finlay Mill, Achalpur, District – Amravati, which is a Government of India undertaking (for short,-“Mill”). Non-applicant No.2 also works as a Training In-charge in Mill in the Training Department.

(b) On 29-04-2021, non-applicant No.2 lodged a report against the applicant, alleging that the applicant intentionally harassed her; he would look at her with evil eyes and abuse her with filthy words, thereby making her ashamed of herself. He also used to tell her that she looks sexy in a saree.

(c) Based on the complaint, an offence was registered against the applicant vide Crime No.125/2021.

4. Mr. S.A. Kanetkar, learned Counsel for the applicant, vehemently contended that the applicant has not committed any offence, but he has been falsely implicated in the present crime as the applicant had made a complaint against non-applicant No.2 with the Higher Authorities, for slapping him, by her on 23-04-2021. To retaliate, non-applicant No.2 made a false complaint against the applicant. Based on the said complaint, the authorities conducted the enquiry through the Internal Complaint Committee (for short, “ICC”), which deals with complaints regarding harassment of women in the workplace. Also, the seven-member committee conducted a departmental enquiry, headed by an assistant manager and the head of the HR department. He drew our attention to both enquiry reports and submitted that in both enquiries, the applicant was exonerated from the allegations made against him by non-applicant No.2, which were not proved. The Enquiry Committee, headed by the Assistant Manager and the Head of the H.R. Department, observed that “non-applicant No.2, by taking undue advantage of being a lady, had filed a false report and exonerated the applicant.” Therefore, he submitted that in view of the mandate laid down in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eow, CBI and Another, (2020) 9 SCC, it is a fit case to quash and set aside the first information report and the further proceedings initiated against the applicant.

Lastly, he contended that the allegations in the FIR are vague and omnibus, and, therefore, no ingredients of the offence have been made out against the applicant. Hence, he has urged that this is a fit case to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings.

5. Per contra, Mr. H.R. Dhumale, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1/State and Mrs. Kirti Deshpande, learned Counsel for non-applicant No.2, resisted the application on the ground that allegations made in the FIR and statements of the witnesses prima facie denote that the applicant was harassing and stalking to non-applicant No.2. Therefore, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. They further contended that there was sufficient material against the applicant to show that he was involved in the crime; hence, they urged the rejection of the application.

6. We have considered the parties' rival contentions and perused the first information report, charge-sheet, and decision in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant.

7. At the outset, it appears that the applicant was working in the Mill as Joint Manager (Technical), and non-applicant No.2 was working under him in the Training Department as T