The court established that allegations of sexual harassment against the applicants were baseless and lacked credible evidence, thus quashing the FIR.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

1. Admit

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

3. By this application, the applicants are seeking quashing of the First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) in connection with Crime No.109/2022 registered with Police Station Yavatmal City, District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections 354 , 354-A, 354-D read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’).

4. The applicant No.1 is in service of Vasantrao Naik Government Medical College and Hospital, Yavatmal (“VNGMC”). He joined service as Assistant Laboratory Technician and since 2010, he is serving as a Laboratory Technician. The applicant No.2 is also serving as a Laboratory Technician. The crime is registered at the behest of the non-applicant No.2. She is a colleague of the present applicants and also serving as a Laboratory Assistant in the VNGMC since 11.11.2016. As per her allegations, on 26.11.2016 at around 2.00 p.m, in the afternoon, the applicant No.1 sexually harassed her by outraging her modesty while conducting an ECG. As per the allegation, the applicant No.1 held her shoulders inappropriately and by physically touching her stomach against her consent and passed a sexually coloured remark. Whereas the applicant No.2 as per the allegation on 16.02.2022, at around 8.30 p.m., followed her when she was returning home from work and continued to stalk her by making sexually coloured remarks. She was also threatened that if she disclosed the incident, she has to face the dire consequences. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicants under Sections 354 , 354-A and 354-D read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989.

5. Heard learned counsel Mr. Rohan Dev for the applicants, who submitted that the entire allegations are groundless and baseless only to avoid the departmental action against her, as it was noted that her conduct is against the rule of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules (MCSR). The superiors have noted her misconduct and action was proposed against her therefore, to avoid the said action, she has filed this baseless complaint against the present applicants. He submitted that even the reply filed by the State shows that the Committee was appointed to enquire with the allegations levelled by her. It revealed to the Committee that she has lost her mental balance and she is in need of detailed psychiatric evaluation. It was further observed by the Committee that the allegations levelled by her against the applicants has no substance and it is also not supported by any of the hospital employees. In view of that, no prima facie case is made out against the present applicants and therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. In support his contention, he placed reliance on Hasmukhlal D Vora and another vs State Of Tamil Nadu reported in (2022) 15 SCC 164 and State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty and others reported in (2022) 16 SCC 703 .

6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said application, but he fairly submitted that during the enqiry by the three members Committee, the Committee found there is no substance in the allegations, and therefore, the appropriate orders shall be passed.

7. Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2- complainant strongly opposed the same and submitted that considering the gravity of the allegations, the application deserves to be rejected.

8. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire documents filed along with the application,