Case: Shripad Kulkarni &amp; Others Vs. State of Goa, Through The Police Inspector &amp; Another

She claimed leave on personal grounds. She was not allowed. She was called to office on the date of the incident. She claimed that she was handed over a resignation letter to sign which she was coerced to do. She has lodged a criminal complaint on 23.5.2013 against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 342 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. It is the case of the petitioners that no cognizable offence is disclosed in the complaint. It is her case that it is clearly and apparently disclosed. Upon that complaint the FIR has been registered and investigation has proceeded. The investigation is essentially in terms of the statements of several persons of the company as witnesses. About eight such statements are recorded, seven of which are identical. One other statement is in more detail and shows what transpired after the complaint. The spot panchanama has been made and the chargesheet has been filed pending the petition.4. The Petitioners contend that in view of the fact that her initial complaint does not at all disclose any cognizable offence the FIR and the consequent chargesheet must be quashed and no criminal trial shall proceed as that would amount to abuse of Court process. In her additional affidavit filed on 12.12.2013. Respondent no. 2 contends that in fact she has given a further statement. Her husband has also given a further statement, none of which have been shown in the chargesheet. She claims that other documents and forensic evidence are not collected as was required and that they do not form part of the chargesheet. This would have to be seen in the light of whether her initial complaint itself discloses cognizable offence of which the State could take cognizance to proceed upon.5. It would therefore, be material to first analyse the initial complaint. The complaint dated 5.1.2013 is hand written and signed by the complainant which is submitted to the Police Inspector, Mapusa Police Station, whose acknowledgment has been obtained by the complainant. The complaint shows what transpired on the date of the incident being 4.1.2013. The relevant part readsI was picked up from my residence by the company vehicle and taken to my office where I was wrongfully confined to a room in the presence of Mr. Shripad Kulkarni (Plant Manager), Mr. Sanjay Dabir (Sr. Director India Engineering) and Ms. Indrani Saha (DirectorHR) and I was coerced to sign my resignation letter.

Court's reasoning:
10. The remainder of the complaint including the last sentence hereinabove cited shows the fact of signing the resignation letter which may be without any reason or justification which shows that it was signed under duress and she was verbally threatened and that she signed because she was wrongfully confined to a room and under mental pressure. It also shows that the resignation letter was previously prepared. It shows her state of mind at the time of the incident. It shows that she was depressed, shock, humiliated and cheated and she left for home feeling suicidal. The remaining part of the complaint does not disclose any offence under the I.P.C.Even if the police officer registered the offence and took down the statement, the Court will have to see whether in the initial complaint itself as also from those statements at least some offence can be disclosed which could be prosecuted.16. It may be mentioned that there are number of statements recorded of various persons serving in the company where the complainant served who had come to their office who saw the complainant going in conference room and going out then but did not know what transpired therein.The argument on behalf of the complainant that chargesheet discloses the bad investigation would also not be sufficient to show any offence under the I.P.C. Counsel on behalf of the complainant drew our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 ALL MR(Cri) 952 in which parameters for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. have been laid down. It sets our the circumstances under which it has to be exercised and which are enumerated thus:(i) to give effect to an order under the Cr. P.C.(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.22. It would be an abuse of the criminal machinery to prosecute the petitioners for a civil wrong alone made out by the complainant and consequently to secure ends of justice, her complaint would require to be quashed.23. Our attention have been drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asmathunnisa Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 259   in which the enjoinment for the exercise of inherent powers for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have been laid down in paragraph 13. Three parametres laid down in that judgment runswhere it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.24. The above case falls under the second parameter since upon reading the complaint it does not disclose a cognizable offence. Even otherwise, the evidence which has been shown to us also does not prove the case sought to be made out by the complainant. It would be futile to criminally prosecute the complaint of respondent no. 2. She would however be entitled to sue and prove her case in civil Court.