Criminal Misc. No. 32732-M of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 32732-M of 2006 Date of decision : March 03, 2008 Arvind Kumar Malhotra .....Petitioner Versus Smt. Anju Anand ...Respondent **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the respondent. **** RAJESH BINDAL J. The prayer made in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short “the Code”) is for quashing of complaint dated November 18, 2003 under Section 506 and 509 IPC filed by respondent in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and the summoning order dated February 28, 2005 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Briefly the facts, as pleaded in the petition, are that petitioner is a senior officer working with the Chandigarh Industrial & Tourism Development Corporation Limited ( for short “the Corporation'). On September 10, 2001 four employees including respondent were unauthorisedly absent from duty in the working hours. While the other employees apologized in writing for their dereliction of duty, the respondent started misbehaving and threatening the petitioner to teach him a lesson. Immediately the matter was reported to the Managing Director of the Corporation by forwarding a written note of September 10, 2001. Respondent was transferred from the place she was working. Thereafter respondent filed a complaint with the Managing Director of the Corporation Criminal Misc. No. 32732-M of 2006 -2- **** levelling false and concocted allegations of misbehaviour, misdemeanor and nefarious designs against the petitioner. Keeping in view the allegations of the respondent, the Corporation keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishakha and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3011 constituted a committee consisting of Mrs. Varsha Joshi, CEO, CHB, Mrs. Agya Rajinder Singh, IAS (Retd.), General Secretary, RACHETA, Mrs. Madhvi Kataria, Director Social Welfare, UT and Sh. N. S. Brar, CGM, CITCO to look into the complaint made by respondent vide order dated October 11, 2001. The proceedings before the Committee started on October 16, 2001 and after affording detailed hearing to both the parties and permitting them to lead evidence, the Committee in its enquiry report dated May 12, 2003 opined that the allegations of respondent of sexual harassment on the part of the petitioner are not sufficiently borne out from the available evidence. The allegations of unwelcome sexually determined behaviour and reasonable apprehension of adverse consequences as per guidelines of Vishakha's case (supra) by Hon'ble the Supreme Court were not found to be established. No ground was found to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved against the enquiry report, respondent preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 12695 of 2003 before this Court, which was dismissed on August 14, 2003. Even the Special Leave Petition filed against the order of this Court was also dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on October 05, 2007. 4. After the dismissal of writ petition filed by the respondent by this Court on August 14, 2003 besides filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, respondent filed a complaint dated November 18, 2003 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh under Sections 506 and 509 IPC in which the petitioner was summoned to face trial vide order dated February 28, 2005 after recording preliminary evidence in the form of statements of respondent no.2 complainant, her husband and one witness from the office of the Corporation proving photocopies of the earlier complaints made against the petitioner. It is at this stage, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing of complaint, Criminal Misc. No. 32732-M of 2006 -3- **** summoning order and all subsequent proceedings thereto. 5. I have heard Mr. Hemant Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Navkiran Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint filed by the respondent is nothing else but abuse of process of law. Having failed earlier in the complaint with identical allegations before the Committee constituted in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishakha's case ( supra) and after dismissal of her Civil Writ Petition by this Court challenging the findings of the enquiry, respondent filed complaint before the Court below alleging offence under Section 506/509 IPC. Once in the departmental proceedings where the standard of proof required to establish the guilt is as far lighter as compared to the criminal proceedings, respondent had not been able to prove her case, permitting the prosecution of the petitioner to continue on the same allegations would result in unnecessarily harassment and would amount to abuse of process of law. He further submitted that even the complaint was time barred as the alleged incident had taken place on September 10, 2001. For the offence under Section 509 IPC the maximum punishment is one year imprisonment and in terms of provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, complaint for the offence could be filed only within one year, however, as the complaint under Section 509 IPC had become time barred to bring the matter within limitation Section 506 IPC was also added. He relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (3) R. C. R. (Criminal) 261. Still further he submitted that not only this Court even Hon'ble the Supreme Court also did not find any substance in the allegations made by the respondent and consequently no defect was found in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner where he was not found guilty of any of the allegations made by the respondent. Even before this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the same points were raised by the respondent which are sought to be raised in the complaint. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the complaint filed by the respondent should not be quashed as such at this Criminal Misc. No. 32732-M of 2006 -4- **** stage as even if the respondent has not been able to prove the guilt of the petitioner in the departmental proceedings for the reasons that enough material may not have been produced there in the form of evidence, she will certainly be able to prove the same before the Court below where she will get independent witness examined which would show even the previous conduct of the petitioner. However, he has very fairly not denied that the allegations in the complaint made to the corporation and in the complaint in the Court are same. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that complaint filed by the respondent before the Court below on the allegations which are identical on which a Committee constituted by the Corporation in terms of the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishakha's case (supra) has already gone into, deserves to be quashed. It is admitted position on record that the allegations in the complaint before the Corporation and the before the Court are same. Aggrieved against the report of the Committee, respondent preferred Civil Writ Petition before this Court and failed. The same was the fate in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Meaning thereby no defect was found in the enquiry conducted by the Committee. The Committee has gone into all the allegations in detail including the stale allegations of certain incidents which allegedly took place way back in 1991, 1996 and 1998. While considering the issue under similar circumstances, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in P.S. Rajya's case (supra) opined that standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in departmental proceedings. If the charges, which were identical, could not be established in the departmental proceedings how these can be proceeded with under criminal law and finally keeping in view the fact that petitioner before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in P.S. Rajya's case (supra) had been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the criminal proceedings initiated against him on the same charges were set aside. 9. In view of my above discussion, it would be in the fitness of Criminal Misc. No. 32732-M of 2006 -5- **** things that complaint filed against the petitioner by the respondent is quashed. Accordingly, complaint dated November 18, 2003 under Section 506 and 509 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed. 10. The petition is disposed of accordingly. March 03, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge