State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt Anusha Deepak Tyagi

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18601
1 WA-2179-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
th
ON THE 29 OF JUNE, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2179 of 2025
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT ANUSHA DEEPAK TYAGI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Mody- Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Rajendra Jain- GA for
the appellants/State.
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi- Advocate for respondent no. 1
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar- Dy. Solicitor General for respondents no. 2,4 and 5.
Shri Saurav Jain- Advocate for respondent no. 3.
Shri Prashant Sharma- Advocate for respondent no. 7.
Shri Rajmani Bansal- Advocate for respondent no. 9.
Shri DPS Bhadauriya- Advocate for respondent no. 10.
Shri Chetan Kanoongo- Advocate for respondents no. 12 and 13.
ORDER
Per: Justice Ashish Shroti
Appellants/State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal under Section 2(1)
of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005 challenging the order dated 15/7/2025 passed by learned Single
Judge in W.P. No.5625/2020, whereby, they have been directed to pay
compensation of Rs.5 lakh to respondent no.1/writ petitioner on account of
inaction on their part in registering FIR.
2. Facts necessary for decision of this case are that the respondent no.1 was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/8/2026
1:45:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18601
2 WA-2179-2025
working as Yoga Instructor (Female) in respondent Laxmi Bai National Institute of

Physical Education, Gwalior (in short ‘Institute’) since 2015. She made a
complaint regarding her sexual harassment by respondent no.7, who was Vice-
Chancellor of the Institute at that point of time. The complaint was taken up by the
Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and a report has been submitted to
Secretary, Department of Youth Affairs & Sports, New Delhi. For the purposes of
decision of this appeal, the enquiry conducted by ICC is not relevant and need not
be deliberated in detail. Suffice it to mention that the said part of the order was
challenged in a separate writ appeal by respondent no.7 and this Court by the order
of even date has set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge in view of
pendency of appeal filed by respondent no.7 against the recommendations of ICC.
3. Apart from making complaint to ICC, the respondent no.1 also
approached the Station House Officer of Gole Ka Mandir Police Station, Gwalior
on 14/10/2019 complaining about the sexual harassment by respondent no.7 and
others. She also made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Gwalior on
15/10/2019. Yet another complaint was made by her to Superintendent of Police,
Gwalior and SHO on 18/10/2020.
4. When the FIR was not registered by the Police, the respondent no.1 filed
an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class (JMFC), Gwalior. The learned Magistrate called for the status report from
the Police and ultimately final order dated 21/11/2021 was passed in the case. The
learned Magistrate prima-facie found that the allegations made by respondent no.1
makes out a cognizable offence, however, it would not be appropriate to issue
directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., instead, it was directed that complaint
made by respondent no.1 shall be treated as complaint under Section 200 & 202 of
Cr.P.C. and shall be considered on the question of registration of complaint.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/8/2026
1:45:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18601
3 WA-2179-2025
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by JMFC, respondent no.1

approached this Court by filing M.Cr.C. No.63392/2021. This Court dismissed the
case vide order dated 6/1/2022 upholding the order passed by JMFC.
6. The respondent no.1, still aggrieved, approached Hon'ble Supreme Court
by filing SLP (Cr.) No.1674/2022. Leave was granted by the Apex Court and case
was registered as Criminal Appeal No.1184/2022. Hon'ble Supreme Court did not
approve the action of Police as also the orders passed by the JMFC and by this
Court. The Apex Court directed the Police to register an FIR on the complaint
made by respondent no.1 and to take further action in accordance with law. Order
passed by this Court was set aside.
7. While the aforesaid litigations were pending, respondent no.1 filed
present writ petition praying for following reliefs:-
"7.1 That by the issuance of a writ in the nature of "Mandamus" the
Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to to
provide a safe working environment.
7.2 That by issuance of a writ in the nature of "Mandamus" the Hon'ble
High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to treat sexual
harassment as misconduct under the service rules and initiate action for
misconduct against respondent no. 6.
7.3 That by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus the Hon'ble
High Court may be please to direct the Respondents to conduct fair
enquiry upon the complaints/applications of the petitioner by superior
authority of the respondent no.6.
7.4 That by issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus the Hon'ble
High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to no coercive
action taken against the petitioner on the basis of false complaint and set
aside/ or declared void the all malicious proceeding against the
petitioner after the complaint of harassment.
7.5 That by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus the Hon'ble
High Court may be please to direct the Respondents to declared the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/8/2026
1:45:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18601
4 WA-2179-2025
committee null & void which constituted by the Respondent no. 6. And
removed all the remarks which mentioned by the respondents in the
personal file of the petitioner.
7.6 Any other writ direction order as may be deemed fit in the
circumstances may also be awarded along with the cost of litigation.
7.7 That the suitable directions may kindly be issued to the respondent 1
and 2 to take the action against the respondent No. 6 to 10 in pursuance
to the report of ICC Annexure-P/26. Annexures-P/30, 31, 32 and 33
may kindly be quashed and the necessary directions may kindly be
issued for granting the salary to the petitioner from November 2019 to
15 December 2020. The Compensation amount (2 years of the salary) of
the petitioner be recovered from the respondents as per section 15 of the
Act 2013 and the show cause notice ANNEXURE-P/8 dated 27-9-2019
issued by respondent No. 7 under the influence of respondent No. 6 may
kindly be quashed and heavy cost be imposed on the respondents for not
adhering the relief to the petitioner immediately in pursuance to the Act
2013.
That the respondent no.1 may kindly be further directed to attach,
transfer or send on deputation to the petitioner with the Ministry of
Youth Affairs and Sports, New Delhi as already LNIPE, Gwalior
deputed 02 other staff members (contractual) in the Ministry office (SP-
VI) - New Delhi or Transfer/Suspend the respondents 06-10 from the
LNIPE, Gwalior campus in concern of safe working environment of the
petitioner in the interest of justice."

8. A perusal of reliefs prayed for in the writ petition shows that respondent
no.1 has not prayed for any specific relief against the appellants particularly the
relief for grant of compensation. In clause 7.7 only, issuance of direction was
sought to respondent no.1 & 2 to take action against respondent no.6 to 10 as per
report of ICC.
9. It be noted here that the writ petition was filed on 29/02/2020 when the
matter was pending before the ICC and before the Police authorities. The ICC
submitted its report on 21.09.2020. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 amended her
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/8/2026
1:45:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18601
5 WA-2179-2025
writ petition. The amendment was allowed by learned Single Judge on 26/6/2021.

This was the time when the matter regarding registration of FIR was pending
before learned JMFC. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have
asked for any relief against the Police Authorities. Meaning thereby, there was,
infact, no relief prayed for by respondent no.1 in her writ petition against the
Police authorities.
10. Learned Single Judge passed the impugned order on 15/7/2025,
whereby, following directions have been issued:-
"40. Thus, this Court holds that the petitioner was subjected to sexual
harassment at her workplace and no steps were taken by the respondent
No.2/Institute in timely extending justice to the petitioner, which had
deprived her valuable time, energy & reputation and respondent
No.2/Institute had let its administration being controlled by a person,
who was not even fit to be kept in service of any nature.
41. This Court also holds that the police authorities are responsible for
not taking action in time on the complaint made by the petitioner and
had waited for three long years to register a crime, that too upon
directions of the Apex Court, which had added to the agony of the
petitioner, thus, had also made liable to be penalized.
42. In the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that
the petitioner was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment at her
workplace, which comes within the meaning of Section 2(n) and Section
3(2) of the Act of 2013.
43. Respondent No.6 is directed to pay compensation to the tune of
Rs.35 Lakhs towards loss of salary for two years, pain & suffering, loss
of reputation and emotion distress forthwith.
44. A sum of Rs.1 Lakh as penalty is imposed upon the Institute for not
taking appropriate action in timely extending justice to the petitioner at
her workplace, which shall be paid within a period of four weeks from
the date of order of pronouncement.
45. So far as part of the police authorities is concerned, in the light of
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/8/2026
1:45:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18601
6 WA-2179-2025
Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, this Court
finds that when a report of cognizable offence was made by the
petitioner, what was necessary of the police officials to have registered
the crime, as the information given to the police had disclosed the
commission of a cognizable offence, but it had failed to do so.
46. Thus, this Court finds that the inhumane and unsympathetic
behaviour shown by the police officials makes them also liable for
penalty. Accordingly, the State is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5
Lac to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of order
of pronouncement, which shall be recovered from erring officials from
their own pocket.
47. It is also directed that if the petitioner, still wants to be shifted
to some other institute, respondent No.1 is directed to consider her
prayer and post her to some other place of her choice."

11. A perusal of entire order passed in writ petition shows that there is no
discussion with regard to action/inaction on the part of police authorities. Only in
paragraph 41, writ Court held Police Authorities responsible for not taking timely
action for a period of three years. Having held so, in paragraph 46, Writ Court has
directed for payment of compensation of Rs.5 lakh to respondent no.1 by the State
of M.P., which could be recovered from the erring officials. This direction of
learned Writ Court is under challenge in the present appeal.
12. Learned Additional Advocate General challenged the directions issued
by Writ Court primarily on the ground that the findings recoded in the impugned
order that the Police Authorities failed to take action for three years is not
sustainable inasmuch as the decision not to register FIR was taken promptly and,
thereafter the matter remained pending before various courts. It is his submission
that the decision of Police authorities is ultimately not approved by Apex Court,
however, there was no delay on the part of Police authorities. It is his submission
that the action of Police Authorities was in fact upheld by JMFC as well as by this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/8/2026
1:45:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18601
7 WA-2179-2025
Court and it is only by virtue of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the

FIR was registered. Thus, it is his submission that the finding about inaction on
the part of Police Authorities for three years is unsustainable.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 supported the
impugned direction. As per his submission learned Magistrate has recorded a
finding that the allegations made by respondent no.1 makes out a cognizable
offence, still directions were not issued under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Referring
to paragraph no.16 to 18 of the order passed by Supreme Court, he submitted that
the inaction on the part of Police Authorities has been deprecated by the Supreme
Court. He thus submitted that learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in
issuing the impugned directions against appellants.
14. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
15. As noted above, the writ petition was filed on 29/02/2020 when the
matter was pending before the ICC and before the Police authorities. Only relief
contained in para 7.1 to 7.6 were prayed for. The ICC submitted its report on
21.09.2020. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 amended her writ petition. The
amendment was allowed by learned Single Judge on 26/6/2021 and relief clause
no.7.7 was added. This was the time when the matter regarding registration of FIR
was pending before learned JMFC. Therefore, there was no occasion for the
petitioner to have asked for any relief against the Police Authorities. Meaning
thereby, there was, infact, no relief prayed for by respondent no.1 in her writ
petition against the Police authorities.
16. Since, there was no relief claimed by respondent no.1 in the writ petition
against the Police Authorities, the impugned direction issued by learned single
Judge directing appellants/State to pay compensation to respondent no.1 is not
justified. Infact, as discussed above, the decision of Police authorities though has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/8/2026
1:45:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18601
8 WA-2179-2025
not been approved by Apex Court, by they are not guilty of inaction for three

years, as observed in impugned order by writ court. Thus, impugned direction of
learned Single Judge, without there being any relief claimed against the Police
authorities in the writ petition, is unsustainable.
17. Further, when the FIR was not registered by the Police on her complaint,
the respondent no.1 approached JMFC under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. This was
somewhere in the year 2021. The matter was concluded by JMRC vide order dated
21/11/2021. Thereafter, M.Cr.C. No.63392/2021 was filed by respondent no.1
before this Court, which was decided on 6/1/2022 and then the matter was pending
before the Apex Court till 5/8/2022. Thus, since the matter was under
consideration before various Courts, the observation of Writ Court that the action
was not taken by the Police for three years, is not found to be just and proper.
18. It is worth noting here that we have set aside the other directions issued
by learned Single Judge in writ petition by a separate order of even date passed in
W.A. No.2332/2025 which was filed by respondent no.7. The matter has been
relegated to the appellate authority under the Sexual Harassment of Woman at
Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
19. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the considered opinion
that the direction issued by learned Single Judge for payment of compensation to
respondent no.1 by the appellants is not sustainable. The direction as contained in
para 46 of the impugned order is therefore, set aside. Writ appeal is allowed to the
extent indicated hereinabove.
(ANAND PATHAK)
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JUDGE
JPS/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/8/2026
1:45:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18601
9 WA-2179-2025


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAI PRAKASH
SOLANKI
Signing time: 7/8/2026
1:45:45 PM