Back
VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT
Ajay Awasthi Alias Ajay Kumar Awasthi – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.27720 of 2017 (State v. Ajay Awasthi) as well as for quashing the charge-sheet dated 15.5.2017 and order of cognizance dated 31.5.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-VIII, District Kanpur Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No.53 of 2016, under Section 509 I.P.C., P.S. Harbansh Mohal, District Kanpur Nagar.
2. Heard Sri Vimlendu Triptahi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Ms. Bina Gaur, opposite party no. 2 in person and perused the record.
3. Brief facts of the case is that the opposite party no.2 had joined the company namely PNB Met Life in the year 2009 on the post of Assistant Sales Manager at Kanpur. The applicant was posted as Branch Manager of PNB Metlife Insurance Company Limited, Mal Road, Kanpur Nagar in November, 2011 and worked as Branch Manager of aforesaid branch of company upto 2014. The opposite party no.2 was under subordination of applicant during the aforesaid period. The opposite party no.2 applied for transfer and was transferred on 1.3.2014 from Ka
The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner, finding no evidence of sexual harassment or conspiracy, emphasizing the lack of mens rea and the frivolous nature of the allegations.
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.
The Court reiterated that the order of cognizance which forms the basis of initiation of proceedings cannot be made in a mechanical way but requires great exercise of judicial mind, and that the Magi....
The court emphasized the importance of specific allegations and evidence to establish charges under the IPC and highlighted the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance of offenses.
The burden of proof in a criminal proceeding is different from that in a departmental proceeding. The court must treat complainants of sexual harassment and assault sensitively and ensure a fair tria....
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.
The court established that complaints of harassment under IPC Sections 354 and 509 must demonstrate assault and intent, which were absent; thus, quashing the FIR to prevent abuse of legal process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
