S.P. GARG, J.

1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 589/2013 registered under Sections 354-A, 509 IPC at Police Station Mehrauli. The petition is contested by the respondent/complainant.

2. The petitioner urged that the instant FIR has been lodged by the complainant to pressurize him to settle the criminal prosecution instituted by him against her vide Complaint Case No. 261/1/11 titled Gulvinder Khatri vs. State & Ors. in which complainant’s son along with others has been summoned to face trial under Sections 323/452/506/147/149/34 IPC vide order dated 19.12.2011. Allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. Allegations leveled by the complainant cannot be taken on its face value. The Investigating Officer did not offer any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit his version on the record. The complainant leveled false charge of sexual advancement against him on 28.08.2013, when he had already filed a Civil Suit No. 198/2013 on 24.08.2013 against her where she was directed to park her car No. HR 99QT 4083 in the common parking space of a building alloted to her, in a way that it did not obstruct the petitioner’s car bearing No. DL 2C AH 6121 either in the parking of her car or in taking it out from its parking space. The petitioner further urged that on 28.08.2013 at around 11.20 a.m., he had come down from his upper ground floor of the building holding a camera and had taken photographs of the car bearing No. HR 99QT 4083 owned by the prosecutrix obstructively parked against his car No. DL 2C AH 6121. After clicking two three photographs, he had handed over the camera and newspaper from the street abutting the parking bay to his wife, Savita Khatri standing over the upper ground floor balcony of his flat. While the petitioner was busy in clicking the photographs, he noticed that the complainant was approaching towards the parking bay from the opposite side by talking on her mobile but she did not come close to him and he watched him from a distance. The petitioner had taken only less than ten minutes in clicking photographs and thereafter he went straightaway to Saket Metro Station to reach Narela Sub-City situated about 60 kilometres away from his abode to attend the pre-decided meeting with Regional Manager, Region IV, State Bank of India. He further urged that the investigation was not carried out fairly. Legality and propriety of order dated 12.09.2014 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the point of charge whereby allegations of the prosecutrix were accepted at their face value was also challenged. The evidence brought on record by the petitioner was not taken into consideration. Reliance was placed on Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2010 (3) JCC 1972; Vimal Suresh Kamble vs. Chaluverpinake Apal S.P. and Anr. Appeal (Crl.) 1449/1995; Sukhbir Yadav vs. State Crl. A. 679/2003; Dr. M.M. Mandakumar vs. N.A. Nisa and Anr. Crl. M.C. No. 1006/2015; Suraj Mal vs. State, AIR 1979 SC 1408 and Ashok Narang vs. State, Crl. A. No. 932/2009.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant controverting the arguments urged that the impugned order of the court below does not suffer from any illegality.

4. The petitioner and complainant were acquainted with each other. Relations between the two were strained specifically over parking of the vehicle in the common parking area. On 28.08.2013 at around 11:22:05, the prosecutrix made a call to PCR. In her complaint, she informed that on 28.08.2013 at around 11:11/15 a.m. when she had come downstairs in the parking to switch ‘on’ the water motor, the petitioner misbehaved and verbally abused her stating, if she once came in his car, thereafter, he would never say anything to her; at which she went away from the car