Crl. Misc. No. M- 9240 of 2009 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 9240 of 2009 Date of Decision:April 01, 2009 Manisha Chaudhary ---Petitioner versus K.A.S. Parmar, General Manager and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA, J. Manisha Chaudhary-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) seeking quashing of order dated 14.5.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon and order dated 9.8.2008 (Annexure P-9) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon. Petitioner filed a complaint dated 5.1.2002(Annexure P-3) against the respondents under Sections 347, 354,506,426 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code wherein it has been averred that the petitioner was working as Stitcher-cum-PVC Welder with M/s Bharat Sheets Limited, Crl. Misc. No. M- 9240 of 2009 {2} Plot No. 1, Gurgaon for the last 15 years. In November, 2000, she was selected as executive member of the Union. Due to this reason she was being harassed by the management of the company. She was being threatened that she would be dismissed from service if she did not work in accordance with the wishes of the management. Accused misbehaved with her. Thereafter she made a complaint to Jagriti Mahila Prakoshth on 15.9.2000, but no action was taken on the same. On 26.4.2001 at 9-00 a.m., the complainant was called by the respondents and the door was bolted from inside. She was forcibly made to sit on a chair. The accused told the complainant that in case she wanted to save her job, she must accompany them to a hotel and please them. Complainant, however, managed to come out of the room and narrated the occurrence to her co-employee-Asha. Complaint in this regard was made to the police and it was assured by the Superintendent of Police that FIR would be registered, however, no action was taken by the police. Hence this complaint was filed. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon has observed in the impugned order that complainant has levelled general allegations regarding the harassment. Allegations have, however, been levelled by the complainant with regard to the incident dated 26.4.2001 and 28.4.2001. During enquiry by the police the said allegations were found to be false. In fact, it transpired during investigation that the petitioner, after she became the member of the Executive Committee of the union, had became irregular and negligent in discharge of her duty. Two departmental enquiries were initiated against her. On 26.4.2001, as per the police report, complainant was on leave for half day whereas the case of the complainant was that she was present in the office for the whole day. According to the complaint, Crl. Misc. No. M- 9240 of 2009 {3} she was called by Rohit Ralhan in his chamber on 28.4.2001 whereas, police after enquiry found that Rohit Ralhan was out of station on the said date. Air tickets in this regard were also placed on record. Complainant was dismissed from service on 14.12.2001. In these circumstances, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,Gurgaon has rightly held that it is apparent that the complaint was filed as a counter blast to the order of dismissal. The said order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon (Annexure P-7)was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon vide order dated 14.11.2008 (Annexure P-9). Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon after going through the material placed on record have rightly come to the conclusion that the complaint in question was filed as a counter blast of the dismissal order. During investigation by the police, the allegations levelled by the complainant were found to be false. Rather it transpired during investigation that the petitioner was negligent in performing her duties after she became the member of the Executive Committee and two departmental enquiries were initiated against her.In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 01, 2009 PARAMJIT