IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 09.09.2025 Date of decision: 18.09.2025 GAURAV KHATRI ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Argued by: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. The prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure P-8), vide which the charges against the petitioner under Sections 354-A and 451 of IPC were quashed and the petitioner was wrongfully charge-sheeted under Section 354 of IPC. A further prayed was made seeking quashing of FIR No.163, dated 26.07.2020, registered at Police Station PGIMS Rohtak, District Rohtak, under Sections 354-A and 451 of IPC.

Factual matrix

2. The allegations levelled against the petitioner, as contained in the aforesaid FIR, are reproduced hereinbelow.

“12. PT B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences Rohtak No. UHSR/CSO/2020/1740 dated 26.07.2020 To, the SHO Police Station PGIMS, Rohtak, Sub-Lodging of FIR.1. It is to bring in your kind notice that two persons entered in the library of PGIMS Rohtak on dated 22.07.2020 at around 23:15 hrs. They were lates. Lates identified as Mr. Dheeraj Gulia of this institute and another one outsider Mr. Gaurav Khatri by lady doctor by watching CCTV Footage. Mr. Gaurav Khatri trespassed being an outsider by entering in the library with the bad intention. He was not entitled to enter inside the library being an outsider. He also misbehaved with a lady doctor and outraged her modesty as mentioned by the lady doctor namely xxxxxx. Report of Sexual harassment committee is hereby enclosed. 2. In view of the above you are requested to lodge FIR as desired by Worthy Director PHIME Rohtak as the earliest. SD/- Rohit Kumar Asst. Security Officer, PGIMS, Rohtak. Endst.

No. UHSR/CSO/2020 dated 26.07.2020. xxxx”

3. Upon registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out and challan was presented, whereafter the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 02.03.2021 proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner under Sections 354-A and 451 of IPC. A petition for quashing of the order framing charges was challenged by way of petition bearing CRM-M-39235-2021 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 27.03.2023. Thereafter, fresh charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 354 of IPC vide order dated 04.01.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR and the impugned order dated 04.01.2024.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant FIR. The entire dispute pertains to an instance when the petitioner, who himself was pursuing a medical programme from a Russian University, along with his friend, visited the library of PGIMS, Rohtak, who at the relevant time, was pursuing his medical degree from that institution. It is submitted that admittedly, the petitioner had only greeted the prosecutrix and tried to initiate a conversation, however on being declined the indulgence, the petitioner left the premises. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC are not made out against the petitioner. This fact can be evinced from the testimony of the prosecutrix made before the learned trial Court, relevant portion of which reads thus:

“xxx Stated that on 22.07.2020, I was a third-year residential student of General Surgery at PGIMS. On that day, at around 11:30 PM, I was going to the library on my scooty, when a white car stopped in front of me. Since some time had passed, I do not remember the number of the car. At that moment, some voices were coming from the car, which made me angry. I looked at the car number and went into the library.

While I was studying inside the library, a boy came and sat beside me.