The High Court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings is confined to verifying if the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence; it cannot conduct a mini-trial, evaluate the truthfulness of allegations, or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Shubham Dev Mallick, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent-State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-

"That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash FIR dated 14/09/2025 in crime no. 0570/2025 w/s 75(1)(iv), 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered in PS- Civil line Korba C.G. and also quashed the charge sheet (ANNEXURE P/1) against the petitioners, in the interest of Justice.

2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Order dated 03/11/2025 whereby the Id. Judicial Magistrate First Class Korba has taken the cognizance (ANNEXURE P/1) whereby the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First class Korba has taken the cognizance of the case for the offences u/s 75(1)(iv), 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered in PS- Civil line Korba C.G.

3. That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the (ANNEXURE P/2) order dated 05/12/2025, whereby the Ld. Additional Session Judge FTC Korba has framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences u/s 3(5), 75 (3), 79 Of BNS against the petitioners.

4. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Session trial no 124/2025 pending before the Ld. Additional Session Judge FTC Korba (ANNEXURE P/3)

5. That any other relief Hon'ble Court deems feet may also be granted."

3. The facts of the case are that the complainant, working as an MDRT Agent under Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, lodged a complaint dated 13.09.2025 alleging sexual harassment, defamation and mental torture against the petitioners, alleging that they had insulted and humiliated her in the presence of other office staff by making indecent and derogatory comments, on the basis of which FIR No. 0570/2025 was registered at Police Station Civil Line, Korba, on 14.09.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 75(1)(iv) and 79 of the BNS. The petitioner No.1 has been working as a Business Associate Manager with Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited for the past five years and petitioner No.2 has been working in the same company for the past four years. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1, in discharge of his official duties, had advised the complainant to improve her work performance, failing which her licence could be revoked, as her work performance had remained poor, and being aggrieved by the same and due to personal enmity, the complainant lodged the false and baseless complaint against the petitioners with an ulterior motive to implicate them in a criminal case and extract money from them. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation constituting any offence against the petitioners and even if the allegations contained in the complaint and FIR are taken to be true in their entirety, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 75(1)(iv) and 79 of the BNS are not made out against them. After filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Korba, has commenced the trial, which is presently pending at the stage of evidence, hence, the petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR and the subsequent proceedings pending before the learned trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present prosecution is wholly misconceived, false and an abuse of the process of law, as the FIR has been lodged on the basis of a concocted and exaggerated version arising out of a professional dispute and personal grudge between the parties. It is submitted that the allegations made by the complainant are vague, omnibus an