1 2026:CGHC:10723-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1096 of 2024 1 - Ritesh Kumar Singh S/o Shri Indra Bahadur Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Kapsethi Banaras, Varanasi (U.P.) At Present R/o Godhanpur In The Rental House of Rajesh Shukla P.S. Gandhinagar, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra Gandhi Nagar District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Arpana Singh W/o Shubham Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Shivdhari Colony, Ambikapur Thana Gandhinagar District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Neeraj Mehta, Advocate. For State : Shri Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 02.03.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs/prayer: 1. Allow this petition, 2. Quash the FIR No. 41/2024 dated 28.01.2024 registered at Police Station - Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhi Nagar), District- Ambikapur-Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable Under Section 354-A, 354-D and Section 509 of IPC, and petitioner be discharged, in the interest of justice. 3. Quash the Criminal Proceeding in Criminal Case No.180/24 pending before the, Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.03.03 10:47:12 +0530 2 2 A PUD dated 22.07.2024 has been received from the respondent No.2/victim in compliance of notice issued to her by this court on 20.06.2024, wherein expressing her inability to appear before the court she has prayed for rejection of this petition treating the PUD as her appearance before the court. 3 From perusal of PUD it transpires that the respondent No.2/victim expressed her inability to appear before the court and to engage counsel on her behalf to pursue the case because of some financial hardship as also for some other personal reasons. Hence, we proceed to hear the matter finally as the case is pending since 2024. 4 The allegation against the petitioner, as projected by him, is that being a Regional Manager of Shri Ram Finance Limited, Ambikapur, he gave certain task to the complainant/victim to complete the same within stipulated time frame, in which she failed and taking advantage of said failure of the victim, it is alleged that he asked her to favour him sexually which she refused resulting in to filing of FIR against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 354-A, 354-D and 509 IPC. The present petition has been filed seeking quashment of said FIR and consequential criminal proceeding. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner was posted as a Regional Manger in Shri Ram Finance Limited, Ambikapur where the complainant/victim was also employed and was given a target to done some specific work in which she failed on account of which the petitioner called her time and again and instructed her to complete the task, but she failed and only in order to harass the applicant, the present FIR has been lodged. He would 3 further submit that as per the report of Visakha Committee which has been annexed in the petition, the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges as the victim has failed to prove sexual assault against the petitioner before the said Committee. Therefore, the petitioner prays to quash the FIR and consequential Criminal Proceeding. 6 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition and would submit that it is true that the Visakha Committee has given a clean chit to the petitioner, however, so far as the present case is concerned, in the present case FIR was lodged by the complainant/victim on 28.01.2024 for the offence under Sections 354- A, 354-D and 509 IPC with respect to the incident which took place on 03.01.2024 to 23.01.2024 and further the statement of victim under Section 164 CrPC was recorded in which she has levelled allegation of sexual harassment by the petitioner by calling her in his chamber repeatedly and asked for sexual favour to which she refused, which goes to show that involvement of petitioner cannot be ruled out. Further, the charge sheet has been submitted before the court on 04.02.2024 and the court has also taken cognizance of the matter, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7 Having considered the rival contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, the undisputed facts of the instant case is that the petitioner was working as Regional Manger in Shri Ram Finance Limited, Ambikapur. The complainant/victim was also employed under the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that being Regional Manger of the said company, he gave certain task to the complainant to complete the same within specific time period in which 4 she failed and thereafter the petitioner tried to convince her for sexual favour. From the material available in the case it appears that though Visakha Committed gave the petitioner clean chit for the alleged offence, however, his involvement in crime in question in the capacity of Regional Manager of the Company cannot be ruled out. All the other aspects which the petitioner intend to assail are his defence which can only be looked into after the evidence of either side is adduced. Whether there is sufficient evidence and the said evidence are admissible and are cogent enough to convict the accused, are all matter of evidence which could not and cannot be looked into by the court of law at the initial stage where the only consideration to be taken note of is whether prima facie offence is made out or not. 8 Though, it transpires from order sheet that an interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner in the present case and Visakha Committee has also given clean chit in favour of the petitioner, however, on a pointed query being made with respect to status of trial, the counsel for petitioner fairly submits that charge sheet has been submitted before the court and the court has also taken cognizance of the matter. 9 So far as the law under Section 482 CrPC is concerned, it is by now a well settled proposition, that while considering the case for quashing of the Criminal proceedings the court should not “kill a stillborn child” and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there a compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegation have some substance. When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court 5 is whether the uncontroverted allegation as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither can the Court embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence nor should the court judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. 10 In view of above, since trial is in progress, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter at this belated stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 11 Interim order stands vacated. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder