JUDGMENT :

RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE , J.

1) The present Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash FIR No.139/2019 dated 2nd April 2019 registered with the Samata Nagar Police Station, Kandivali, Mumbai under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and the resultant proceedings being C.C.No.175/PW/2020 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (17th Court), Borivali, Mumbai.

2) Perusal of the FIR would indicate that, Respondent No.2/ original Complainant used to work with a bureau by name Book My Bai Bureau, Malad, Mumbai which provided employment opportunities for household work. Six months prior to filing of the present FIR, Respondent No.2 had left her aforesaid job and therefore was in need of employment. That, on 27th February 2019, one Mr. Vijay, a Watchman working with Spring Grove UNO Society, Lokhandwala, Kandivali (East), Mumbai informed Respondent No.2 that, the resident of Flat No.H-504 requires a housemaid for cooking food. As Respondent No.2 was agreeable to take up the job, the said Watchman introduced Respondent No.2 to the present Petitioner. The Respondent No.2 was employed and was to attend the work twice a day to cook meals at the consideration of Rs.5,000/- per month. The Respondent No.2 joined from 1st March 2019. It is alleged that, on 2nd March 2019, when Respondent No.2 was attending work at the said flat, the Petitioner allegedly approached Respondent No.2 and while referring to her husband made enquiries i.e. “is your husband a weak person, why do you come to work”. Allegedly, Respondent No.2 replied that, “there was nothing like that”. It is alleged that, Petitioner then told Respondent No.2 to inform him if she required any help.

3) On 10th March 2019, i.e. the date of incident, Respondent No.2 visited the said flat at about 12.00 noon for cooking food. That, at about 12.15 p.m. when Respondent No.2 was cleaning the utensils in the kitchen, Petitioner allegedly caught her from behind and before she would react or resist the Petitioner he pulled her saree and touched her private parts. That, Respondent No.2, after rescuing herself, escaped and ran away from there. That, she made inquires with the watchman standing at the gate about the whereabouts of watchman Vijay. She was allegedly informed that, Vijay was not on duty. Respondent No.2 did not discuss the incident with anybody as she was under impression that her husband will get upset and scold her. That, later on the same date of the alleged incident she informed her husband of the incident, which led to a quarrel between Respondent No.2 and her husband. That, thereafter Respondent No.2 along with her husband visited the Society and informed the people present about the alleged incident. That, persons present in the Society vide telephonic conversation informed the Petitioner about the incident of which he was accused. The Petitioner informed them that he was out of station and would return on Saturday. That, on 2nd April 2019, the Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint under section 354 of IPC. Investigation was conducted and pursuant to the investigation, chargesheet bearing CC No.175/PW/2020, came to be filed.

4) Heard Mr. Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, learned APP for the Respondent-State and Mr. Dilip Shukla, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

5) Mr. Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that:-

i) The FIR is an afterthought and filed at a belated stage. The incident is alleged to have been taken place on 10th March 2019 and the FIR is filed on 2nd April 2019 i.e. after a delay of 21 days. That, the explanation offered for delay is vague and any man of ordinary prudence and intelligence would refuse to believe or accept the same. That, the present FIR is nothing but an attempt to extort monies from the Petitioner and pressurize him in dealing with illegal demands.

ii) That, the C.C.T.V. footage