FIR Lodged Was Filled With Improvements & Material Facts Were Suppressed: Bombay HC Quashes Charges U/s. 354A IPC Against VP Of Max Life Insurance Co.
The Bombay High Court allowed a Criminal Writ Petition filed by the Vice President (HR) of Max Life Insurance Company seeking to quash an FIR against him under Sections 354-A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court, after careful pursual of the facts of the case, noted that there were many improvements and suppression of material facts in the FIR and that it was recorded with malafide intentions.
The Bench comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Shivkumar Dige asserted, “Pursual of record clearly indicates that, the FIR lodged by the Respondent No.2 is filled with improvements and suppression of material facts which are on record, as noted above and according to us is lodged with mala fide intention, only to harass the Petitioner”.
Advocate Sanjay Kumar appeared for the Petitioner, Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Patil appeared for Respondent no. 1/State and Advocate Meenaz Kakalia appeared for Respondent no. 2.
A Criminal Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner seeking to get an FIR lodged under Sections 354-A and 509 of the IPC against him quashed. The complainant, working as a Center Manager in the insurance company, alleged that the Petitioner, the company's Vice President (H.R.), made inappropriate comments and behaved aggressively towards her. The incident occurred during a meeting at the office when the Petitioner stared at her, made a suggestive comment, tore her nameplate, and threatened her before leaving.
The Bench noted, "In her FIR, the Respondent No.2 has stated that, though she had lodged her complaint with the Company, the Company did not take any cognizance of it, is not only contrary to the record and facts as mentioned herein above but also a thoroughly incorrect rather false statement made by her. Respondent No.2 has suppressed the fact that, the Max Life Insurance Company had taken cognizance of the complaints lodged by her on 30th May, 2016 and her father on 11th August, 2016 and the ICC had conducted inquiry into it. She also did not disclose the fact of her lodging of earlier complaint with Boriwali Police Station on 18th July, 2016."
The Court observed that Respondent no. 2 had filed the complaint after a delay of approximately three months, and had also failed to disclose important facts. The Court referred to the principles outlined in the Supreme Court case of the State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and held that any further investigation against the Petitioner would be an abuse of the legal process.
“After applying category no. 6 and 7 of the principles enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal (Supra), to the present case, we are of the considered view that, the continuation of further investigation in the FIR lodged by the Respondent No.2 would be sheer abuse of process of law and needs to be quashed in the interest of justice”, the Bench asserted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and quashed the FIR.
Cause Title: Vijay Choudhary v State of Maharashtra (2023:BHC-AS:23045-DB)
