The court quashed the charge sheet as the allegations of sexual harassment were found to be vague and lacking corroborative evidence, indicating a misuse of the criminal process.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying for quashing of the Final Form/Report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C (corresponding Section 193 of BNSS 2023) dated 14.07.2022, in C.T. Case No.630 of 2021 arising out of Balasore Town P.S. Case No.0176 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 294/354A/ 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding to Sections 296, 75, 351(2)/(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore.

2. The prosecution case originates from an F.I.R. dated 16.08.2021 lodged by the informant namely Rebati Nayak, an ex-employee of Suryoday Small Finance Bank Ltd., Balasore Branch, alleging that she was abused, sexually harassed, and threatened by her former colleagues upon seeking clearance after resignation. The allegations stem from the events purportedly occurred in connection with her resignation and demand for a clearance certificate from the Bank. Based on her complaint, the police registered the present case and, upon investigation, submitted the Charge Sheet.

3. Heard Mr. Palit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the F.I.R. was lodged maliciously and as a retaliatory measure after the bank refused to issue a clearance certificate owing to the informant’s failure to comply with HR policy, including non-adjustment of an advance of Rs.10,000/- paid to her during her COVID-related leave period. It is contended that she had also threatened to implicate the petitioners in a false case and commit suicide, prompting the petitioners to first lodge a preventive complaint on 14.08.2021 before the Sahadev Khunta Police Station.

5. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.10877 of 2021 by order dated 03.11.2021. Subsequently, charge-sheet was submitted following the investigation, and the petitioners now seeking for quashing of the same.

6. Vide order dated 26.11.2024, notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2/informant by this Court in the present petition. Subsequently, on 07.01.2025, the petitioners have been allowed to take Dasti notice to serve the opposite party No.2. The Deputy Manager Legal of the bank has filed affidavit of service, dated 20.01.2025 inter alia, stating as under:

“4. That, as per the Hon'ble High Court direction on 14/01/25, I along with Advocate Clerk Mr Prasant Kumar Mohanty visited the address of OP No. 2 along with Mr. Karunakar Mishra, Nirakar Sahoo and Subhrata Panda who are Petitioner no. 1, 2 & 3 and in order to avoid any unwanted situation, the above mentioned Petitioner were waiting outside the village.

5. That, I along with Mr Prasant Kumar Mohanty visited the House of OP No. 2 at Sugo, PS: Basudevpur, Dist: Bhadrak and requested her to receive the Notice and stated the facts about the Criminal Misc. Case. The OP no.2 along with her father Mr Ajay Kumar Nayak refused to receive the Notice and upon our repeated request to receive the same, they abused us and asked us to leave their house. We apprehended an unwanted situation and intimated the police control room for assistance.

6. That, one person named Chintamani Nayak who identified himself as Sarpanch of Sugo Grampanchayat, acknowledged our visit on the backside of the Notice by endorsing with his seal and signature. In the meantime the PCR from Basudevpur PS came and after appraising the situation, they have recorded the details and we left without the Notice being served, as the OP No.2 refused to receive the same.”

In view of the affidavit, the service on opposite party No.2 is deemed to be sufficient. However, she chose not to appear and contest the matter.

7. Mr. Palit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the allegations in the F.I.R. and statements re