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.

ORDER :

(Anand Pathak, J.)

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of the FIR registered at Crime No.508/2022 at the Police Station Gole Ka Mandir District Gwalior for offence under Sections 354-A, 509, 120-B of IPC.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was working as Head of the Department (HOD) of Yogic Sciences whereas complainant was working as Yoga Instructor at the relevant point of time. It appears that dispute started when the present petitioner issued show cause notice dated 09-08-2018 regarding complainant's absence on 09-08-2018 itself and respondent No.2 replied the said show cause notice on 11-08-2018. Thereafter different correspondences also took place between the parties.

3. It appears that respondent No.2 was mainly aggrieved by the action/intention/overtures of the then Vice Chancellor, therefore, she raised certain allegations against the then Vice Chancellor and against the petitioner by way of filing police complaint. When no action was taken by the police authorities, then she filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Gwalior for allegations mainly in respect of section 354A of IPC.

4. The JMFC, Gwalior directed the petitioner to make her statement before the Court purportedly under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and treated the said application as private complaint. Court below rejected the prayer of complainant to direct police to investigate the allegations. Being aggrieved by the said order she preferred a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. vide M.Cr.C.No.63392/2021 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06-01-2022 giving opinion that order of JMFC, Gwalior treating the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. as complaint is correct and dismissed the petition.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 filed SLP which converted into Criminal Appeal bearing No.1184/2022 and vide order dated 05-08-2022 the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.63392/2021 and directed the JMFC, Gwalior to proceed further with direction for registration of case and investigation. Thereafter, police registered the FIR at crime No.508/2022 and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. Petitioner is against this charge-sheet.

6. It is the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the instant FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. After direction of the Supreme Court in the matter, case has been registered against the petitioner and without proper investigation challan has been filed in the matter. It is further submitted that in initial complaint, case of complainant was of harassment through departmental procedure and complainant did not level any allegation in relation to Section 354A of IPC. Petitioner is Head of the Department and it is her duty to do the administrative works due to which she issued a show cause notice to the complainant which precipitated the complainant to level false allegations against her.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without going into the nature of allegations and without considering the material aspects of the matter and ulterior motive of complainant, police registered the case against the petitioner and filed charge-sheet.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and according to him trial shall unfold the truth. Petitioner is facing trial under Section 354A of IPC and it can only be decided by evidence.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant elaborately argued the matter and submits that the Apex Court after considering gravity of the offence shown there indulgence and police rightly registered the case against the petitioner. Petitioner was instrumental in harassing the complainant at the behest of the Vice Chancellor. FIR clearly co