SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Manoj Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State (GNCTD) – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 | CRL.M.C. 2524/2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Parmesh Bali, Gagan Garg, Shivam Srivastav, Keshav Maheshwari, Abhishek Nandan
For the Respondents: Shoaib Haider, Yashpal Singh, Abhinandan Gautam, Himanshu Baliyan

Criminal proceedings must be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the allegations fail to satisfy the essential legal ingredients of the charged offences and demonstrate an abuse of process where staff are caught in civil disputes without evidence of criminal intent.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 341, 354, 506 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Wrongful restraint - Outraging modesty - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Essential ingredients for wrongful restraint under Section 339 include an obstruction preventing a person from proceeding in a direction in which they have a legal right - Where security staff prevent entry in good faith under instructions, such acts do not constitute criminal offences under Section 341 - Section 354 requires criminal force with specific sexual intent to outrage modesty; mere physical restraint to prevent unauthorized entry lacks such specific component. (Paras 37-41, 46-51)

(B) Abuse of process - Criminal proceedings initiated within the context of private family civil disputes where parties have been targeted specifically to settle scores, rather than disclosing commission of prima facie offences, warrant invocation of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. (Para 53)

Facts of the case:
Security staff were employed at business premises following a familial dispute regarding inheritance and corporate control. Upon attempting to enter the premises, a relative of an deceased stakeholder was allegedly restrained by the staff who had been instructed to deny access. The relative subsequently filed criminal complaints alleging wrongful restraint and outraging of modesty. The trial court ordered charges to be framed, which were challenged via petitions for quashing.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not satisfied. The staff were performing assigned duties in the context of a property dispute, and there was no evidence demonstrating any sexual intent for the charge under Section 354 or an illegal restraint of a person who held a pre-existing legal right to enter the premises.

Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 341 and 354 of the penal code and whether the ongoing proceedings amounted to an abuse of the judicial process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a defined legal right to access the property precluded a finding of wrongful restraint, and the physical act of preventing entry by security personnel lacked the specific intent required to constitute an offence of outraging modesty. Furthermore, criminal litigation appearing to stem from civil family disputes, which targets agents or staff performing professional duties without criminal intent, qualifies as an abuse of the court's process.

Result: Petitions allowed; criminal charges quashed.

Table of Content
1. initial procedural background and appointment context of security guards. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. conflicting factual claims regarding the incident and subsequent criminal charges. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. arguments, precedents, and detailed contentions from both litigants. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
4. analysis of wrongful restraint under section 341 ipc; scope of duty-bound acts. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
5. assessment of criminal force under section 354 ipc; finding abuse of legal process. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
6. final order quashing charges and discharging the petitioners. (Para 54 , 55 , 56)

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The aforementioned Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 482 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), have been filed on behalf of the Petitioners, namely, Manoj Mishra and Suresh Kumar to quash the Criminal Proceedings arising out of FIR No. 1079/2015 under Section 341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Amar Colony and also against the Orders dated 18.04.2017 and 03.08.2018, respectively, whereby Charges under Section 341/34 IPC were framed and also against the Order dated 20.07.2018 vide which additional Charge under Section 354 IPC, was directed to be framed against the Petitioners.

2. The Petitioners have stated that there was an untimely and sudden death of Mr. Somesh Mehrotra, one of the Directors of VLS at the young age of 48 years under mysterious circumstances, at his residence on 22.08.2015. Thereafter, the guards including the Petitioners, were appointed to safeguard and protect the office and monitor and regulate the movement of visitors in the Office of the VLS Group Companies, in order to instil security and confidence amongst his employees, who were under a state of shock and fear because of the mysterious death.

3. Mr. Mahesh Prasad Mehrotra, father of the deceased, Mr. Somesh Mehrotra, had made Complaints to the Local Police on 22.08.2015 in regard to the suspicious and mysterious death of his son, which was investigated by the Crime Team of Delhi Police. Thereafter, FIR No.246/2016 under Section 304 IPC, was registered, which is pending investigation.

4. The Petitioners had joined the services and duties as guards on 17.09.2015 and were posted at the Office of VLS Group of Companies at 13, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065. There was another Guard also appointed.

5. The Respondent No.2/Ms. Sadhana Mehrotra, wife of Late Mr. Somesh Mehrotra (about which the Petitioners were not aware), who admittedly was neither an employee nor official or the Director of the Company, along with one male colleague, visited the Office on 18.09.2015 and forcibly tried to enter into the private Office premises, despite it not being a public place. She did not disclose the details, particulars and purpose of visit. The Petitioners as part of their guard duties, politely requested them to give their particulars, details, etc. in the Visitor Register, but they refused in abusive language and tried to enter the premises forcibly.

6. However, the Respondent No. 2 made a false and frivolous Complaint with sole aim and objective to satisfy her high inflated egos, high socio-financial stature, as to how could the Petitioners being only the Guards, could dare to ask her and her colleague to give their details and particulars about whom they had come to meet and to make the necessary entry in the Visitor Register. The Respondent No. 2 in order to teach a lesson to the Petitioner, filed the false and mala fide Complaint alleging that he had held her upper arm to stop her and her male colleague, from forcibly entering the premises.

7. A call was made to No. 100 on 18.09.2015, for lodging t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top