Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maninder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 April, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
134
CRM-M-15598-2021
Date of decision: 08.04.2021
Maninder Singh ………Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ….Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI
Present: Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, J (ORAL)
(The case has been taken up for hearing through video
conferencing.)
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’)
for quashing of FIR No. 187 dated 31.08.2020 registered under
Sections 323, 354, 354-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short ‘the I.P.C.’) at Police Station DLF Phase-1, District Gurugram
along with all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The above said FIR was registered on written complaint
submitted by respondent No.2-Sonia Singh to the SHO, Police Station
DLF Phase-1, Gurugram. In the written complaint respondent No.2-
Sonia Singh alleged that she is working in Indigo Company and her
Senior Manager is Maninder Singh (the petitioner). The petitioner has
bad intention towards her for the last many days. He, on the pretext of
having friendship with her, made her to sit in his car and forcibly tried
to do bad act with her in Delhi Terminal-1 Parking in the month of
March before the lockdown. When she objected to the same he forcibly
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 04:43:46 :::
CRM-M-15598-2021 -2-
kissed her and continued repeatedly kissing her despite her objection.
When she objected he told her that he would continue to support her in
her job and continued to tease her. On her objection he threatened to
terminate her from job and also to kill her. On 13.08.2020 at about
07:00 or 07:30 P.M. in the parking of Indigo Company he caught her
and started insisting her to go with him stating that he had to do
something and touched his hands on her breast. When she started
objecting he started abusing her and went from there saying that if she
would tell anybody in the company then along with her job, her
reputation would be spoiled. The police investigated the case, joined
the petitioner in investigation by serving notice under Section 41A of
the Cr.P.C. and on completion of investigation, on finding evidence to
be sufficient against the petitioner filed charge-sheet against him.
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition pleading that
respondent No.2, appointed as contractual employee for one year in
July, 2019, was not having good health and was in depression due to
which she fell unconscious during office hours. The petitioner being the
Manager took her counselling sessions lasting about nine months
during which respondent No.2 shared various personal things to the
petitioner. Despite having knowledge that the petitioner has a family
and kids respondent No.2 started claiming that she is feeling attached
with the petitioner as he is understanding her. Due to Covid-19
pandemic the office was closed for sixty days but respondent No.2
remained in contact with the petitioner through calls and WhatsApp
chats as and when she needed a cold shoulder regarding her personal
issues. After resumption of work, whenever the petitioner and
2 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 04:43:46 :::
CRM-M-15598-2021 -3-
respondent No.2 had the same duty roster the petitioner used to drop
respondent No.2 on her request to the nearest auto stand due to lower
availability of public transport. On 18.06.2020, respondent No.2 got
tense about the termination of contract of her colleague and called up
the petitioner for help for renewal of her contract and contract of her
colleague but the petitioner did not want to get himself involved and
forwarded the contract details of concerned department EVA to
respondent No.2 to whom she could redress her grievance. This
particular guidance made respondent No.2 more inclined towards the
petitioner and her liking towards him increased drastically. Respondent
No.2 even used to call the petitioner especially in her close family
functions and also made her parents to especially meet the petitioner. In
July, 2020 after an year of working together, when the petitioner and
respondent No.2 were comfortable with each other, respondent No.2 in
another session of counselling revealed a deep secret about her past and
another cause of depression that she had issues with the Manager of the
previous company against whom she made similar allegations who
apologized and paid compensation as demanded by respondent No.2 to
close the issue. Thereafter, on better wisdom prevailing, the petitioner
started distancing himself from respondent No.2. On 13.08.2020,
respondent No.2 pressurized the petitioner to meet her and accompany
her to home and come back again to office as she wanted to discuss
something important which could not be spoken on phone. She
continuously started messaging the petitioner due to which the
petitioner had to block her number on WhatsApp. Respondent No.2
waited for the petitioner to get free, followed him through the office
3 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 04:43:46 :::
CRM-M-15598-2021 -4-
premises to the parking lot and tried to sit in his car and pressurized the
petitioner to speak to her and not to break the relationship. There was
heated argument between the petitioner and respondent No.2 which was
witnessed by the guards in the parking who were sent back by
respondent No.2 by saying that they were just discussing some issues
between them. The petitioner made her understand that these things
should not be discussed at office place and further promised to speak
about it in coming days. The petitioner had conveyed to respondent
No.2 on earlier occasions also that the bond they are sharing could not
continue for long as it is hampering his family and professional life and
suggested to respondent No.2 to focus on her career, family and getting
married soon on which respondent No.2 got annoyed. The petitioner
brought everything in the notice of Mr. Sharad, HR Manager and Ms.
Priyanka Mendiratta, Associate Director. As suggested by Mr. Sharad,
HR Manager, the petitioner sent an email to him on 14.08.2020
informing him about the said incident with request to change the
department of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint
dated 14.08.2020 with the police as a counter blast to the above said
complaint made by the petitioner through email to the employer
authorities. Respondent No.2 settled the matter with the petitioner and
convinced him to withdraw his complaint and to show her bona fide she
also sent a letter to the police authorities that she does not want any
action on her complaint. On requests and apologies made by respondent
No.2 the petitioner took back his complaint on 17.08.2020. Respondent
No.2 was herself pressurizing the petitioner to meet her by sending
messages and herself wanted to be with the petitioner, waited for him
4 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 04:43:46 :::
CRM-M-15598-2021 -5-
after office and followed him to the parking. After withdrawal of his
complaint by the petitioner, respondent No.2 got the present FIR
registered against the petitioner on 31.08.2020 after 17 days of the
incident on concocted allegations to take revenge for rejection of one
sided love affair and failure to fulfil unjustified demand of respondent
No.2. The photographs of the self-inflicted injuries were given by
respondent No.2 to the police to falsely implicate the petitioner. The
petitioner had never been involved in any activity or offences involving
moral turpitude during his career span of 20 years. The petitioner has
accordingly prayed for quashing of the above-said FIR along with all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and gone
through the record.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the
factual averments made in the petition and vehemently argued that the
FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 mala fide on concocted allegations
for taking revenge against the petitioner for his refusal to have
relationship with her and the FIR and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom are gross abuse of the process. Therefore, the FIR
alongwith final report and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
may be quashed for preventing abuse of process and securing the ends
of justice.
6. On perusal of the material on record and consideration of
the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner I am of
the considered view for the reasons to be hereinafter mentioned that the
petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 04:43:46 :::
CRM-M-15598-2021 -6-
7. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which saves inherent powers of
the High Court, reads as under :-
“482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.- Nothing
in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice.”
8. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and
others : 1991(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 383 Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as under:-
“107. 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 sufficiently 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 F.I.R. do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers 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 F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
6 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 04:43:46 :::
CRM-M-15598-2021 -7-
5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in 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 efficacious 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.
108. 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 F.I.R. 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.” (emphasis supplied)
9. In Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. And another 2014(4)
Recent Apex Judgments 324 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as
under:-
“10. ………..A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. makes it
crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under this
section is to prevent abuse of process of Court and to
secure ends of justice. There are no hard and fast rules
that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but
not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no
straight jacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a
Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will
always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. The Courts have to be very circumspect while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd.
v. Biological E. Ltd. And Others, 2000(3) SCC 269, has
discussed at length about the scope and ambit while
exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and how
cautious and careful the approach of the Courts should
be. We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that
7 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 04:43:46 :::
CRM-M-15598-2021 -8-
judgement, which reads:
“Exercise of jurisdiction under inherent power as
envisaged in section 482 of the Code to have the
complaint or the charge sheet quashed is an
exception rather than rule and the case for
quashing at the initial stage must have to be
treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the
prosecution with the lodgement of First
Information Report. The ball is set to roll and
thenceforth the law takes it’s own course and the
investigation ensures in accordance with the
provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is
rather limited and restricted and it’s undue
expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In
the event, however, the Court on a perusal of the
complaint comes to a conclusion that the
allegations levelled in the complaint or charge
sheet on the fact of it does not constitute or
disclose any offence alleged, there ought not to be
any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the
people and deal with the situations as is required
under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be
indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness
through a legal process and such an investigation
ought not to be allowed to be continued since the
same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is
paramount”.
12. This Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the
guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the
Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, this Court has listed
the categories of cases when the power under Section 482
can be exercised by the Court. These principles or the
guidelines were reiterated by this Court in (1) Central
Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.
1996 (5) SCC 592; (2) Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi
1999 (3) SCC 259 and; (3) Zandu Pharmaceuticals
Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr., 2004(4)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 937 : (2005) 1 SCC 122. This Court in
Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd., observed that:
“The power under section 482 of the Code should
be used sparingly and with to prevent abuse of
process of Court, but not to stifle legitimate
prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this,
but if it appears to the trained judicial mind that
continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse
of process of Court, the power under section 482 of
the Code must be exercised and proceedings must
be quashed”. Also see Om Prakash and Ors. v.
State of Jharkhand 2012 (12) SCC 72.
What emerges from the above judgments is that when a
8 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 04:43:46 :::
CRM-M-15598-2021 -9-
prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the
tests to be applied by the Court is as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint
prima facie establish the case. The Courts have to see
whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to
abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the
criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or
when the Court comes to a conclusion that quashing these
proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice,
then the Court can exercise the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under the provision,
the Courts have to only look at the uncontroverted
allegation in the complaint whether prima facie discloses
an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that
of a trial Court and dwell into the disputed questions of
fact.” (emphasis supplied)
10. It follows from the above referred judicial precedents that
in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,
the High Court has only to scrutinize the FIR /complaint and take the
allegations/averments made in the complaint on their face value and
consider whether the same disclose commission of any cognizable
offence; whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would
amount to abuse of process of law and would result in miscarriage of
justice; whether the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or 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 and whether quashing of the criminal
proceedings would serve the ends of justice. The power of quashing a
criminal proceeding has to be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases so as not to
scuttle the legitimate prosecution. In exercise of the power the High
Court can not embark upon any roving enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the
complaint and cannot convert itself to a trial Court to dwell into the
9 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 04:43:46 :::
CRM-M-15598-2021 -10-
disputed questions of facts and record any findings. For judicial
precedents reference may also be made to judgments of this Court in
Gurbachan Singh Bhasin Vs. State of Punjab 2013 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 512 and Arvind Vs. State of Haryana 2014 (38) RCR
(Criminal) 290.
11. In the present case the petitioner has inter alia claimed that
respondent No.2 was herself pressurizing the petitioner to have the
relationship with her and sent messages on 13.08.2020 asking him to
meet her showing that she herself wanted to be with the petitioner,
waited for him after office and followed him to the parking and that
after withdrawal of his complaint dated 14.08.2020 by the petitioner on
her apology, respondent No.2 got the present FIR registered against the
petitioner on 31.08.2020 after 17 days of the incident on concocted
allegations to take revenge for rejection of her one sided love affair by
him and his failure to fulfil unjustified demand of respondent No.2 and
that photographs of self-inflicted injuries were given by respondent
No.2 to the police to falsely implicate the petitioner. The pleas taken in
the petition are sum and substance of the defence version of the
petitioner and the questions of facts involved have to be decided on the
basis of evidence to be produced during trial and this court cannot enter
upon making any roving enquiry and cannot convert itself to a trial
Court to go into the questions of facts and adjudicate upon and record
findings regarding the same in the instant petition in exercise of
jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Suffices it to observe that
in the present case, if the allegations made in the First Information
Report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety prima
10 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 04:43:46 :::
CRM-M-15598-2021 -11-
facie case as to commission of offences punishable under Sections 323,
354, 354-A and 506 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. The
petitioner was joined during investigation and on completion of
investigation charge-sheet has been filed by the police against him
claiming that there was sufficient evidence for proceeding against him.
The allegations of sexual harassment require adjudication on the basis
of evidence to be produced during trial and legitimate prosecution
cannot be scuttled by quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of defence version of the
petitioner which has to be proved by production of requisite evidence at
the appropriate stage and cannot be accepted as gospel truth at this
stage. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie FIR
lodged against the petitioner cannot be said to be mala fide and the
criminal proceedings against him cannot be said to have been
maliciously instituted to wreck vengeance on the petitioner for alleged
rejection of one sided love affair of respondent No.2. Consequently, the
FIR in question, charge-sheet filed against the petitioner and
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom can not be said to be an
abuse of process and no ground is made out for quashing of the same by
exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for securing the
ends of justice.
12. In view of the above, the petition, being devoid of any
merits, is accordingly dismissed. (ARUN KUMAR TYAGI)
JUDGE
08.04.2021
Vishal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 04:43:46 :::
Comments