1 2025:CGHC:3704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1526 of 2018 • Ashok Kumar Biswas S/o Late R. G. Singh Aged About 59 Years Personnel Manager, Korba Area S. E. C. L. R/o J. P. Colony, Korba Police Station Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Charcha Colliery District District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Sarojani Thakur W/o Late Dwarika Prasad Thakur Aged About 42 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Quarter No. 931, Ward No. 5, P. S. Churcha, Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2/Complainant : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.01 .2025 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for initiation of the criminal proceedings and consequential taking cognizance of offence and registration of criminal case No. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.25 14:20:31 +0530 2 260/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 354(A), 509 and 354 of Indian Penal Code by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) vide order dated 09.04.2018 and also against the registration of First Information Report No. 132/2017, registered in P.S. Charcha and its consequential charge-sheet by the respondent, without applying of mind and without appreciating the facts and legal provision in a mechanical manner. Hence, this petition. 2. The prosecution case in brief, is that the petitioner was working as Personnel Manager and posted in the office of General Manager, Korba Area of S.E.C.L. Earlier he was posted in Charcha Mines, Baikunthpur area of S.E.C.L, between the period of 21.09.2015 to 01.03.2017. At the time of alleged incident complainant Smt. Sarojani Thakur, aged about 42 years, was working as peon in the Receipt and Dispatch Section of office of Charcha Mines, S.E.C.L. and she has habitually not performed her duty sincerely and willfully and disobedience the order of superior Officer in connection with discharge of her official duty. In the month of January 2017, during reshuffling of office setup, the receipt and dispatch section was shifted in ground floor, from the first floor of office building. The complainant was not happy to this arrangement and annoyance with the petitioner. On 30.01.2017 the petitioner and one Shri Vijay Shankar Ojha Senior Personnel Officer was going to the meeting hall for Industrial Relation Meeting with the workers union, that time in presence of Sub Area Manager, and other officer and staff, the complainant by using abusive language says that "I am not working in newly shifted room, my table be shifted to in the old place, otherwise I am falsely implicate to him and other Officers of the Personal Department." Therefore a complaint 3 was made by Shri Vijay Shankar Ojha, Senior Personnel Officer to the Sub Area Manager, against the complainant. By the aforesaid act of omission and commission on the part of complainant she had contravene the service rules which constitute gross misconduct under the clause 26.3 and 26.18 and 26.22 of the Certified Standing Order. 3. The terms and service conditions of the non executive cadre employees of S.E.C.L. are governed by the Certified Standing Order, which is made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Therefore a charge sheet was issued on 31.01.2017 to the complainant by the office of petitioner and thereafter a departmental enquiry was initiated. The reply to the charge sheet submitted by the complainant, in which she had not mention the alleged incident and not roped any allegation regarding outraging her modesty. Petitioner also made complaint to the police station Charch on 30.01.2017 against the complainant because the complainant was giving him threatening to implicate in a false case. Thereafter, the complainant had made a complaint to the Sub Area Manager, against the petitioner which was received by the office on 21.01.2017 in which only alleging that petitioner having malafide intention with him and pressurizing for wrongful official work and also harassing him. The complainant also alleging that petitioner has giving him threatening for transfer and termination from service. The complainant also alleging that petitioner has stolen his credit card and Rs. 650/- cash. The petitioner was submitted his reply to Sub Area Manager and explain the actual correct fact. For aforesaid reasons the complainant Smt. Sarojani Thakur having enmity with the petitioner and as counter blast of facing 4 departmental enquiry and for saving himself, he has filed a false and fabricated complaint on 09.09.2017 before the Police Station Charcha and alleging that She has working as peon in Charcha colliery S.E.C.L. and on the date of incident i.e. 25.01.2017 she working in the office, at that time at 12:30 p.m. the petitioner come to her room and with wrong intention touching her breast. When objected by complainant the petitioner threatened her that "I taking away you to our section" Further case of complainant is that, on 28.01.2017 the petitioner again come her section at 11:00 a.m. and says that "you come to my office and I am your officer, therefore you are bound to obey my direction" The complainant opposes and shouted. From the above incident the complainant was not feeling good and having fear with the petitioner, therefore a written report has been lodged before the police. On the basis of above complaint the police has initially registered the F.I.R. No. 132/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 354(A) and 509 of I.P.C. Thereafter, subsequently by way of improvement in the story of complainant the offence under Section 354 of 1.P.C. was added only to further increase the gravity of offence and bring to under the category of non-bailable offence. After completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed by the police before the learned trial Court. The learned C.J.M. without applying its mind as required under the law in a mechanical manner by the impugned order dated has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 354(A), 509 and 354 of 1.P.C. and registered the criminal case. As per the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner has not committed any offence and in fact no offence is disclosed from the complaint but learned C.J.M. has taken cognizance and setting in 5 motion criminal proceedings and subjecting to a prosecution of petitioner without examining the material on record and facts and circumstances of the case is a serious matter and affecting the constitutional right of the petitioner, hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence has been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner has been made an accused in the alleged complaint and certain bald allegations have been made against him but there is no any evidence in support of alleged incident. The Magistrate has simply registered the criminal case because it has been filed by the police, even without prima facie satisfying as to whether any offence is being committed or not. The learned C.J.M. committed a serious error in registering the criminal case filed by the respondent No.2 without entering in to the merit of the case. The learned Magistrate ought to have seen that the complainant has filed the complaint after about 9 months from the alleged date of incident. Further, the complainant has not made any complaint to the higher authority, inspite specific provisions regarding complaints, arising out of employment, including unfair treatment on the part of management is there in the clause 35 of the Certified Standing Order, which also provide an appeal to the C.M.D. of S.E.C.L. The learned Magistrate ought to have seen that there was unreasonable and unexplained delay of 9 months in lodging of F.I.R. The extra ordinary delay in lodging the F.I.R. is the circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting the F.I.R. The learned Magistrate ought to have seen that alleged incident was occurred in mines premises in presence of other workers and staff of mines but respondent No.2 deliberately not 6 examined any workman during the investigation because the police was aware of the fact that incident was not actually occurred and the complainant has falsely made an allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner has now retired from the service and is residing in his native place i.e. in Bihar. The petitioner was a sincere and responsible officer of S.E.C.L. and in the entire service career, no allegation has been made against him. From the aforesaid reasons, the complainant having enmity with the petitioner and as a counter blast of facing department enquiry and saving herself, she has filed a false and fabricated complaint about after 9 months from the alleged incident. Therefore, order of taking cognizance on the complaint and issuing summons is illegal and erroneous and is liable to be set-aside. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set-aside. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that after registration of the FIR, the statement of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded and further the statement of the complainant/victim was also recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and from the statement and investigation conducted so far, it is crystal clear that prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. It is respectfully 7 submitted that the present petitioner being the superior ofÏcer had tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant/victim and, thus, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the police after following the due procedure of law, has registered the FIR and after due investigation, the charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court so there is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the answering respondents. It is further submitted that the petitioner in order to obtain interim order from this Court got the date of incident changed and also got an afÏdavit filed with respect to the said fact but he could not dispute the fact that against private respondent No.2, departmental enquiry was also initiated by the competent authority which ultimately was disposed of with strict warning to her. Therefore, the instant petition is vague, baseless and devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be dismissed. Thus, the instant petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made hereinabove and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bhajan Lal (supra) laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - 8 “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufÏciently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police ofÏcers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police ofÏcer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufÏcient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in 9 any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efÏcacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 8. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) has been followed recently by the Supreme Court in the matters of Google India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries1, Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2 and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and others3. The Supreme Court in Google India Private Limited (supra), explained the scope of dictum of Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and “that too in the rarest of rare cases” as indicated in paragraph 103 therein of the report. 9. The The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma (supra) 1 (2020) 4 SCC 162 2 (2020) 13 SCC 435 3 (2019) 18 SCC 191 10 held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufÏcient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without 11 the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufÏcient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the 12 prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the afÏrmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 10. From the perusal of the records and submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that now the petitioner is 65 years old and he has retired from his service. At the time of incident, the petitioner was posted as personal manager in Churcha mines of Baikunthpur, S.E.C.L and the complainant was working under the petitioner as peon. The complainant was in a habit of not performing her duty sincerely and willfully and disobey the order of superior Officers in connection with discharge of official duties. Therefore, the charge-sheet was issued and departmental enquiry was initiated against her which was disposed of giving strict warning to her, and due to said animosity as a counter blast, the complainant has made a false and fabricated report before the Police against the petitioner for saving herself. Further, the complainant has filed a complaint after about 9 13 months from the alleged date of incident, and there is no plausible explanation of delay of lodging the FIR, thus, the present case appears to be a fit case for interference by this Court for exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and Manoj Kumar Sharma (supra) and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner and continuance thereof and also the order dated 09.04.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 260/2018 for offence punishable under Section 354A, 509 and 354 of the IPC and the registration of First Information Report No. 132/2017 at Police Station Charcha and its consequential charge-sheet by the respondent, are hereby set aside. 12. Resultantly, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.. 13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti