1 2025:CGHC:22559-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1149 of 2021 1 - Basant Sahu S/o Shri Ramaram Sahu, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Malgaon, Tehsil And District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station, City Kotwali, Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sana Ali W/o Sayyad Adil Ali, R/o Mahadev Ward, Police Station, City Kotwali, Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh...............(Complainant). Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sishir Dixit, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, PL Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09/06/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR bearing No. 205/2020 registered at Police Station JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.10 17:00:29 +0530 2 Kanker, District Kanker for the offence under Section 354 & 354A of the IPC. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Manager of Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Pidhapal, Kanker. The Complainant/respondent No.2 was working as Computer Operator in the said Society for last about 1 ½ decades. In the written complaint before the Collector, Kanker on 11.6.2020 and thereafter, in the written FIR before the concerned Police on 21.7.2020, the complainant/respondent no.2 alleges that during working hours, the petitioner has outraged her modesty by touching her hands and shoulders. He was also involved in talking indecently to her. Apart from these allegations, she has also alleged that she was not assigned any work and was kept idle in the office and was eventually, removed from the job. She further alleges that she was not assigned any work of paddy purchase and that the petitioner was not properly stocking the paddy and purchasing more than the limit fixed for paddy procurement and that she was also scolded in front of the Collector. She also alleges that a sum of Rs.5000/- was withdrawn from her account without her consent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant has lodged the report FIR on the basis of bald and vague allegations against the petitioner. He would submit that the respondent No.2 was never diligent in her work and for which on several occasions, warnings were given to her, which resulted in lodging the FIR against the petitioner as a revenge. According to the learned counsel, from the entire facts and 3 circumstances, it can be seen that no offence under Section 354 & 354A of the IPC is made out against the petitioner as in the entire complainant, the respondent No.2 has not mentioned the date & time of the alleged incident. The petitioner is a Govt. servant and if the FIR is not quashed, his career will be ruined. 4. Per Contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the independent witness supports the case of the prosecution. However, he would submit that in the case in hand, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the concerned competent court and hence, FIR cannot be quashed at this juncture. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Prima-facie, this Court found that the petitioner has come up before this Court for qushment of FIR, which was registered by the complainant/respondent No.2. From bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it is evident that the petitioner and the complainant were working in the same Society for last about 1 ½ decades but was removed from the job during the lock-down period, which was imposed owing to outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties; the allegations that the petitioner has outraged her modesty by touching her hands and shoulders; the petitioner was talking indecently to her; the complainant/respondent No.2 was not assigned any work; she 4 was kept idle in the office and was eventually removed from the job; a sum of Rs.5000/- was withdrawn from her account without her consent; and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the FIR at this stage. However, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end expeditiously. 8. In that view of the matter, the CRMP is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amar/ jyoti