1 2025:CGHC:28996 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1507 of 2025 1 - Kiran Kashyap D/o Shivkumar Baiswade Aged About 35 Years R/o Bhagola Chawl, Behind Rohani Auto Parts, Near Durga Mandir, Ward No. 03, Katghora, Post And Tehsil - Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sushma Sahu W/o Ramnarayan Aged About 36 Years R/o Lakhanpur, Sutarra, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.). 2 - Editor National Dainik Lok Kiran, Shop No. 34, Vijeta Complex, Shastri Market Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Jalhotri Chouhan (Assistant Teacher) Primary School Saliha Bhatha Sankul Saliha Bhatha, Development Block Paudi- Uproda, Post- Gursia, Tehsil Paudi- Uproda, District- Korba (C.G.). 4 - Raju Kumar Sahu Assistant Teacher (Lb), Primary School Bhatorapara, Shankul-Bhawar, Paudi-Uproda, District- Korba (C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 30/06/ 2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.01 17:29:42 +0530 2 BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 1345/2024, whereby the charge under Section 500 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant is posted as Assistant teacher (L.B.) in primary school village Sutarra and petitioner and accused No. 3 are also posted at same place under the same capacity, respondent No.2 is editor of Dainik Lok Kiran News Paper and respondent/accused No. 4 is also assistant teacher (LB) posted at primary School Bhatorapara, Shankul- Bhawar, Paudi-Uproda, District Korba (C.G.). On 29.07.2022 a registered legal notice was sent to the petitioner and other accused persons by the complainant to beg pardon from the complainant regarding the false complaint, defamatory comment and getting it published in the said newspaper continuously for three days, a criminal proceeding would be initiated against them and also claimed Rs. 2000/-, as legal notice charges. In response to the said notice a joint reply notice was sent by the petitioner and respondent/accused No.3 on 05.08.2022. Thereafter complaint case came to be filed on 12.10.2022 which ultimately registered as complaint case No. 1345/2024 after taking complainant evidence the accused persons 3 appeared and got released them on bail and thereafter charges were framed against the accuse persons on 21.01.2025. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that petitioner has every right to lodge complaint against the complainant as well as head master of the school under the provisions of the ‘The Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) act, 2013’, as the Act has been enacted to protect the dignity of a woman at her work place and in violation thereof she has been conferred a fundamental right under Article 14 & 15 of Constitution of India and right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution and right to practice any profession or to carry on occupation, trade or business which includes a right to save environment free from sexual harassment. He further submits that the complainant has not established her own case that the petitioner got published the said article in the daily newspaper. It has not been established in absence of evidence before charge that under whose instructions and under whose signature the defamatory article was published in the newspaper. The petitioner had never intended to defame the complainant but she exercised her right under the Act, 2013 and thus the case against the petitioner does not comes under the ambit of conclusive prove in terms of Section 4 of the 4 Evidence Act as well as in terms of Section 2A(b) of BNS, 2023. Therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner may be set aside. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the order impugned. 5. Learned trial Court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence prima facie found that the offence under Section 500 of IPC is made out against the petitioner, and therefore, framed charge against the petitioner for the said offence. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the material available on record, it is clear that the issue involved in the case is a matter of trial for which the offence under Section 500 of IPC is framed against the petitioner on the basis of documents available on record, therefore, I do not see any illegality or perversity in the order impugned to interfere with the order. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu