TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re as under : (a) The applicant was working as a Joint Manager at Finlay Mill, Achalpur, District - Amravati, which is a Government of India undertaking (for short,-"Mill"). Non-applicant No.2 also works as a Training In-charge in Mill in the Training Department. (b) On 29-04-2021, non-applicant No.2 lodged a report against the applicant, alleging that the applicant intentionally harassed her; he would look at her with evil eyes and abuse her with filthy words, thereby making her ashamed of herself. He also used to tell her that she looks sexy in a saree. (c) Based on the complaint, an offence was registered against the applicant vide Crime No.125/2021. 4. Mr. S.A. Kanetkar, learned Counsel for the applicant, vehemently contended that the applicant has not committed any offence, but he has been falsely implicated in the present crime as the applicant had made a complaint against non-applicant No.2 with the Higher Authorities, for slapping him, by her on 23-04-2021. To retaliate, non-applicant No.2 made a false complaint against the applicant. Based on the said complaint, the authorities conducted the enquiry through the Internal Complaint Committee (fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o his office/chamber, at that time, non-applicant No.2 went towards him and suddenly gave two slaps on his face/cheek. The witnesses present there caught hold of both. Non-applicant No.2 was not feeling well and, therefore, she was taken to the hospital. 9. On the next day, i.e. 24-04-2021, the applicant filed a complaint to the General Manager about the said incident. Accordingly, the General Manager constituted the Seven-Member Committee headed by the Assistant Manager and six others. After conducting the enquiry, the Committee held that "It is clearly proved from the statements recorded before the enquiry committee that Anushka Belorkar (i.e.-non-applicant No.2) by taking undue advantage of being a lady, on 29-04-2021, has filed a false report before the General Manager and all the enquiry proceedings, evidence and charge-sheet proves the report filed by Narendra Sharma (i.e. the applicant) on 24-04-2021 to be true and hence, all the members of the enquiry Committee comes to the conclusion and declared that the report filed before the General Manager by non-applicant No.2 against the applicant is absolutely false." 10. After the incident dated 23-04-2021 and the applicant&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. On the contrary, their statements reflect that on 23-04-2021, when the incident occurred, non-applicant No.2 gave two slaps on the cheek/face of the applicant. Had it been the fact that since August 2017, as alleged, the applicant was harassing and stalking non-applicant No.2, then certainly she would have made a complaint about the same to a higher authority or lodged a report against the applicant. Likewise, the employees in the Mill, i.e. the witnesses, would have also stated the same, but none of the witnesses has corroborated or supported the version of non-applicant No.2 and only after filing the complaint by the applicant against non-applicant No.2, she made a complaint against him at the higher authority and lodged a report at the police station. 14. In the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to paragraph '38' in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581'',. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering the various judgments, culled out the ratio of those decisions in para '38' and has held if the parameter in para No.38(vii) had been applied, then on a reading of 'CVC' report (in this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port on 29-04-2021 against the applicant, and the applicant was exonerated in the said enquiry". Similarly, after considering the detailed enquiry, the 'ICC' held that "the allegations against the applicant were not proven, and he was exonerated from the allegations". It is to be noted that the facts alleged in the complaint before the General Manager as well as in the first information report are identical and, therefore, in our opinion, the case in hand is squarely covered by the dictum laid down in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra). 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335, has laid down guidelines to be adhered to while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With regard to the facts, we find that the applicant's case would fall under guideline Nos. (i), (iii) and (v), which read thus: i) 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; ....