1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 CrPC to assail the complaint proceedings in Criminal Case No.12332/2006.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioner is an officer in Indian Navy. He has rendered 27 years of unblemished service. The petitioner remained posted in 03 MP Naval NCC Unit Gwalior between 4.4.2004 to 15.12.2005. The respondent No.2 was also posted in the said Unit at the relevant time. She was working as a Lascar a class IV post. She was appointed on compassionate ground due to death of her husband.

3. Shri Raju Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.2 was highly arrogant and was involved in acts of insubordination and making false complaints against the officers. The respondent No.2 was posted on attachment in NCC Group Headquarters from where she reported back to 03 MP Naval Unit NCC on 1.6.2005. Her routine duty was from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. excluding one hour of lunch break. It is urged that similarly posted Lascars always reported on their duty in time but respondent No.2 never turned up in time. She was a habitual late comer and whenever she was apprised about it, her standard answer was that she will come as per her own wish.

4. Shri Raju Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 7.7.2005, the respondent No.2 again came late. The Chief Instructor asked her about the reason for coming late. She started arguing and misbehaving with the Chief Instructor. The petitioner was the Commanding Officer of the Unit and therefore Chief Instructor reported the matter to the petitioner regarding the conduct of respondent No.2. It was in relation to her late coming, refusing to lift the official suit case of Commanding Officer and even refusing to bring/serve tea. He also apprised the petitioner that respondent No.2 is not following the daily roster of Lascars and further refusing to carry the DAK/Treasury duties.

5. The case of the petitioner is that he called respondent No.2 in the presence of Office Superintendent and Chief Instructor and asked her about the choice of duty in which she will feel comfortable. She in turn, started abusing the petitioner. She used very filthy and improper language and misbehaved with petitioner. The petitioner immediately apprised the higher authorities about the incident dated 7.7.2005. The reliance is placed on Annexure P-1 dated 7.7.2005 which is addressed to the Deputy Director General, NCC Directorate, Bhopal. The President Court of Enquiry, NCC Group Headquarter was also apprised by the petitioner by filing Annexure P-2 dated 7.7.2005. The petitioner even intimated about this incident to Officer-in-Charge of Police Station Kampoo/Mahila Thana on the same day i.e. 7.7.2005.

6. Shri Raju Sharma has taken pains to contend that the respondent No.2 preferred a complaint on 8.7.2005. This was done as an after thought and in order to protect herself from any disciplinary action which may be taken by the department for her act of disobedience and indiscipline.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that she subsequently approached the District Programme Officer, Human Rights Commission etc. Petitioner upon receiving notices from said authorities filed his detailed reply. All such authorities were satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner and therefore no action was taken by Human Rights Commission and the Programme Officer. The document dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure P-5) is relied upon by the petitioner to show that a senior officer of the rank of CSP conducted a detailed enquiry and found that allegations against the petitioner are factually incorrect. Shri Sharma submits that later on respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 29.10.2005 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior. It is contended in the said complaint that petitioner has committed offence under sections 323, 325, 326, 341, 294, 352, 354, 506 (Part II) of the IPC and