ARIF. M. S. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6644 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. ARIF M.S.,
SON OF LATE M.S. JALALUDIN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
AT STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
TH
5 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095.
2. V.S. SRIRAM
SON OF V.V. SWAMINATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
AT STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
TH
5 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095.
3. RUZAI ATHAIDE
DAUGHTER OF V.R. ATHAIDE,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
AT STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
TH
5 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095.
4. SAMRAT SARKAR
SON OF LATE SUBHASH CHANDRA SARKAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
AT STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
TH
5 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095.
5. SURBITH PAUL
SON OF SHAILENDRA PAUL,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
AT STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
TH
5 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095.
6. RASHMI THYAGARAJ
WIFE OF DR. MANJUNATHA M. R.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
AT STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
TH
5 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095.
7. SHANU KAPOOR
SON OF NARINDER KAPOOR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT A5-305,
AT STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
TH
5 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095.
8. G.L. HARSHA
SON OF LATE G.R. LAKSHMAN RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
AT STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
TH
5 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095.
9. SHEIK SAIDA ZILANI
SON OF SHAIK HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
AT STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
TH
5 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095.
10. ALOK BAJPAI
SON OF PRAKASH BAJPAI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
AT STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
TH
5 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095.
11. SELVA KUMAR
SON OF A. MURUGESH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
AT STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
- 3 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
TH
5 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.J. CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GERALD MANOHARAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
MADIVALA SUB-DIVISION
HOSUR ROAD, ADUGODI
BENGALURU-560030.
2. NANDINI NAGARAJ
DAUGHTER OF NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.578, SAINILAYA
AMARUTH NAGAR MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560062.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K. PRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - ABSENT)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
11.02.2019 (ANNEXURE-A), COMPLAINT AT ANNEXURE-B AND
THE SUBSEQUENT FIR IN CR.NO.44/2019 ON THE FILE OF XLV
ADDL.C.M.M., NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-
C) REGISTERED BY THE KORAMANGALA POLICE AND
PRESENTLY ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE, ADUGODI AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 02.11.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
- 4 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the
complaint dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure-A); another complaint
dated 08.07.2019 received on 18.07.2019 (Annexure-B) and
the FIR registered in Cr.No.44/2019 (Annexure-C) against the
petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1/State. Though respondent No.2
represented through the counsel, the said counsel is absent
during hearing the matter.
3. In the complaint dated 11.02.2019, an allegation is
made against the petitioners referring NHRC Case
No.958/10/1/2018 for physical, mental and sexual harassment
by her office colleagues. It is stated in the complaint that the
complainant is working at Standard Chartered Bank,
th
Koramangala, 5 Block, as a Business Development Executive
from last nine years. It is stated that she has maintained a
good reputation in the said bank by her hard work. The
- 5 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
allegation against the petitioners in the complaint that on
29.05.2018 at around 02:30 p.m., her Manager Mr. Arif M S
called her and told to come to workstation to discuss about her
iPad which was issued from the bank. When she went there,
she found that there are no other team members except her
and she was surprised to see that in the conference room,
there the three HR Managers, namely, Mr. Surbhit Paul, Ruzai
Menina Athaide, Samrat Sarkar and Associate Director Shanu
Kapoor and Line Manager Arif. They asked her to share iPad
password for which, she denied. But they threatened and asked
the password again. When she resisted, Ruzai Athaide dragged
her into the room and twisted her hand; Mr. Samrat Sarkar
abused her in a high pitch and asked Ruzai to hold her hand.
4. Apart from that, it is alleged in the complaint that,
on 30.05.2018 between 11:30 a.m. to 01:00 p.m. when she
was in the office first floor lobby, her colleagues namely,
Rashmi Thyagaraj, V.S. Sriram, Shaik Saida Zilani, Alok Bajpai,
Selva Kumar, Harsha G L were standing. By that time, Rashmi
Thyagaraj who was a ex-Reporting Manager of the complainant
made a comment on her that she should stand in front of the
ATM by removing her cloth and nobody will going to help her
because, the complainant gave complaint against her with HR
- 6 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
Manager as she makes bad comments on her like bitch, fuck,
etc. They make group of people and pass the comment on her
every time about two incidents. When the humiliation and
harassment was increased day-by-day, without other
alternative, on 30.05.2018 she gave a complaint to her higher
officers by explaining each and every incident. But when all
went vain, she sent her complaint to Speak-up portal in HR
system and also sent a letter to the Regional HR Manager -
Sachin Gupta so also, the CEO- Mrs.Zarin Daruwala. On
number of occasions, her Line Manager- Mr. Arif and Associate
Director- Sriram asked her to work even in holidays and after
the office hours and used to abuse her in front of other male
team members. This happens all the time mainly during month
ends.
5. It is further stated in the complaint that on
30.06.2018, when she approached for personal loan, her Zonal
Associate Director - Alok Bajpe called her ‘a boom’ and when
she asked the meaning directly with him, he said that it is
walking street girls of Thai, he try to touch when she walking
on the floor. Arif, Sriram and Rashmi were calling her for
conference room, which was not covered by CCTV surveillance,
to harass her to the maximum extent asking about her work
- 7 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
and targets and threatening her to withdraw the complaint
which was already filed against them. Hence, she was forced to
lodge a complaint before the National Women's Commission on
28.08.2018 and National Human Right against the persons
concerned. Hence, the present complaint is filed to investigate
the matter as all of them have harassed the complainant by
mentally, physically and sexually continuously.
6. Based on this complaint, crime was registered in
FIR as per Annexure-C. So also, in additional complaint dated
08.07.2019 which was received on 18.07.2019 allegations are
made against the petitioners that complainant was harassed
and humiliated by taking her caste name. Hence, received the
further complaint and invoked the offences under Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 2015 (for short
‘SC/ST Act’). Hence, the present petition is filed before this
Court challenging Annexure-A to C.
7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the petitioners before this Court that this complaint is an
afterthought since the disciplinary hearing was held against the
complainant for various unprofessional acts of misconduct on
- 8 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
25.01.2016 i.e., prior to this complaint. Even complainant was
reprimanded by the bank for violating the code of conduct in
the month of April 2016 and warning letter for violating the
bank's code of conduct policy was issued to the complainant on
22.04.2016 and complainant was put on Performance
Improvement Plan (PIP) on 24.05.2018 and e-mail was issued
to the complainant regarding PIP on 25.05.2018. Sweep check
of iPad of the complainant was conducted by the bank on
29.05.2018. Hence, complainant referred the incident dated
29.05.2018 in the first complaint that is only in respect of
sweep check of iPad and on the next day i.e., on 30.05.2018
complainant alleges that she was abused by the petitioners.
Thereafter, complainant took unauthorized leave from
24.07.2018 to 13.09.2018. The complaint was lodged by the
complainant with the Karnataka State Commission for Women
on 03.09.2018 and also wrote an email to the Bank's Internal
Complaints portal called “Speaking up” on 26.09.2018. The
Karnataka State Commission for Women issued a letter to the
Bank on 27.09.2018. The complainant lodged the complaint
with the Bank's Grievance Redressal Cell on 02.10.2018 and
also with CPGRAMS on 03.10.2018. Grievance Redressal
Committee had a teleconference with the complainant on
- 9 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
29.11.2018 and complainant lodged the complaint before the
National Human Rights Commission on 06.12.2018 and bank
addressed a letter to the Karnataka State Commission for
Women on 07.12.2018. The petitioner Nos.1 to 10 provided
statements to the Koramangala Police in relation to the NHRC
complaint on 25.01.2019. Grievance Redressal Committee
submitted its outcome on 06.02.2019 and the complainant had
filed the present complaint before the police on 11.02.2019
making false allegation of sexual harassment. Consequently,
the police have registered the FIR in Cr.No.44/2019 and issued
notice on 12.02.2019. ICC report was shared with the
complainant and the petitioners on 25.02.2019 and
complainant informed that she intend to appeal the ICC report
before the appellate authority on 06.03.2019. The statement of
B.S. Shobha was recorded by the police on 15.03.2019 so also,
the statement of Neeta Rege was recorded by the police on
20.03.2019. Statement of petitioner No.5 was recorded by the
police on 03.04.2019. Appellate Authority also submitted its
report to the complainant on 03.05.2019. Statements of
petitioners were also recorded by the Koramangala Police on
23.05.2019. On 24.05.2019, statements of petitioners were
recorded by the police. On 27.05.2019, statement of Varun
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
Malik was recorded by the police and Appellate Panel found that
there was no merit in the appeal to the grievance outcome as
per the decision on 29.05.2019. With an oblique motive, second
complaint dated 08.07.2019 which was received on 18.07.2019
was filed by the complainant. Taking note of the conduct of the
complainant, she was terminated from the service on
26.07.2019. The bank also submitted s letter to the ACP
providing documents on 20.08.2019. Without any other
alternative, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing
a petition for quashing of the said complaints and FIR.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners before this Court that complaints are mala fide and
motivated and filed with the vengeance against the petitioners
and to harass them. The number of complaints and
investigations on the same incident is nothing but an abuse of
law and complainant is patently false snf motivated. The fact
that in the earlier complaint, it did not contain allegations with
respect to sexual harassment and caste based discrimination
hence, it clearly shows that such offences were never suffered
by the complainant. Only with an ulterior motive for wreck
vengeance, the complaint was filed due to the fact that
complainant was put on PIP on few days before and all the
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
allegations against the petitioners are false. The counsel also
submits that the complaint to the Bank’s Speaking-up portal
was a mere complaint on harassment and so also the
allegations of sexual harassment in her complaint to the
Karnataka Women's Rights Commission. Thereafter, only in July
2019, filed another complaint making caste discrimination. The
counsel submits that the petitioners are innocent and have not
committed any such offences against the complainant. The
counsel relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal held that the said
judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand. The
complainant was clearly at fault in not allowing the Line
Manager along with HR to inspect bank provided iPad though
that was normal practice adopted by the Bank for all
employees. The audio recording of the incident dated
29.05.2019 clearly shows that no offence of any kind was
committed by the petitioners. The concocted version of the
incident given by the complainant clearly goes to show the
fabrication of the incident. The petitioners Nos.3 and 4 are
based in Mumbai and have had limited interaction with the
complainant. But the complainant created a false story against
them only with an intention to implicate them.
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
9. It is also contended that there is an inordinate delay
in lodging the complaint as it is lodged after more than 8
months from the date of alleged incident as the alleged incident
th th
is of 29 and 30 May 2018 and FIR has been registered on
11.02.2019. The inordinate delay has not been explained
properly. The complainant was reprimanded by the bank for her
unethical and unprofessional conduct prior to this allegation.
The allegation of sexual harassment was made only after the
bank's grievance redressal enquiry had commenced against
her. Hence, it is clear that only an afterthought, the present
complaints are filed and also when she came to know that her
service will be terminated on 26.07.2019, false allegations are
made including the sexual harassment and caste
discrimination. The fact that complainant worked with the bank
for a period of 7 years and in that period, she never complained
of caste-based discrimination and the same is also made
subsequent to the filing of complaint of after thought. The
name of petitioner Nos.5, 7, 8, 9 and 11 have been added by
the complainant without any basis whatsoever. Hence, the
complaints and FIR ought to be quashed on this ground alone.
10. The counsel in support of this arguments relies
upon the judgments with regard to the vindictive/vexatious
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
prosecution should be nipped in the bud. The counsel relied
upon the judgment reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 in the case of
INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI ANOTHER vs STATE OF
UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS and brought to notice of this
Court paragraph 46 wherein discussion was made that the
instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or
with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused. If criminal
prosecution is used, court has to ensure that invoking Section
482 of Cr.P.C.
11. The counsel also relies upon the judgment of Apex
Court reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 in the case of KRISHNA
LAL CHAWLA AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ANOTHER and brought to notice of this court paragraphs
15, 23, 24 and 26 wherein also discussion was made for
invoking of Section 200 of Cr.P.C, frivolous litigation should not
become the order of the day in India and the Magistrate have
an important role in curbing this injustice and controversy
poses a typical example of frivolous litigation.
12. The counsel also relies upon judgment of the Apex
Court reported in (2024) 14 SCC 112 in the case of VISHAL
NOBLE SINGH vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
ANOTHER and brought to notice of this court paragraphs 20,
21 and 22 wherein also Apex Court discussed with regard to
the careful consideration of the judicial dicta and none of the
offences alleged against the appellant-accused herein are made
out and Apex Court also relied upon the judgment of Bhajan
Lal case and so also the judgment of Madhavrao Jiwajirao
Scindia and held that criminal justice is being misused by
certain persons for their vested interests.
13. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported
in (2010) 8 SCC 775 in the case of KISHAN SINGH (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS vs GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS in respect
of delay in lodging the complaint and brought to notice of this
court paragraphs 21, 22 and 25 wherein discussion was made
that prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the
informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding
truth of its version and delay in lodging an FIR, the Court has
to look for a plausible explanation for such delay.
14. The counsel also relies upon judgment reported in
(2016) 9 SCC 1 in the case of MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA
AND OTHERS vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND
ANOTHER with regard to the delay in lodging the complaint
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
and brought to notice of this court paragraph 30 wherein also a
discussion was made with regard to the delay in lodging the FIR
often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an
afterthought.
15. The counsel relies upon the judgment reported in
(2024) 2 SCC 176 in the case of SEKARAN vs STATE OF
TAMIL NADU and brought to notice of this Court paragraphs
14 and 15 wherein also the Apex Court discussed with regard
to start with the FIR, to which exception has been taken by the
appellant urging that there has been no satisfactory
explanation for its belated registration. In cases where delay
occurs, it has to be tested on the anvil of other attending
circumstances.
16. The counsel also relies upon the judgment reported
in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 2058 in the case of ARSHAD
NEYAZ KHAN vs STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER
and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 22 wherein also
the complaint was filed after a delay of nearly 8 years and the
same was taken note of and relied upon the judgment of Inder
Mohan Goswami case also while dealing with the issue.
- 16 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
17. The counsel would vehemently contend that as a
counter blast, complaint has lodged and Court has to consider
the attending circumstances by relying upon the facts and
circumstances. In this regard, the counsel relies upon the
judgment reported in (2023) 20 SCC 219 in the case of
MOHD. WAJID AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH AND OTHERS and brought to notice of this Court
paragraphs 38, 41 and 42 wherein also the Apex Court
discussed that the court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case
over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The court
while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to
the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the
overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of
the case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. So also, the FIR in a criminal case is an
extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose
of corroborating the oral evidence adduced on the trial.
However, delay with other attending circumstances emerging
from the record of the case rendering the entire case put up by
- 17 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
the prosecution inherently improbable, may at times become a
good ground to quash the FIR and consequently proceedings
even for quashing the FIR.
18. The counsel relies upon the judgment reported in
2025 SCC ONLINE SC 2013 in the case of NITIN
AHLUWALIA vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER and
brought to notice of this court paragraphs 8, 9 and 12 wherein
also a discussion was made that the complaint is seen in
isolation, then the approach of the learned Single Judge
appears, entirely to be in consonance with the established
position of law - allegations have been made, and so they have
to be investigated. In certain cases, though, it is not as
straight-cut as that but it is true that elaborate defences and
evidence brought on record is not to be considered at this
stage, it is equally true that a mechanical approach cannot be
countenanced and the same is discussed in paragraph 8. In
paragraph No. 9 also taken note that to entertain the possibility
that the same is nothing but a counterblast to the fact that
appellant has two orders in his favour.
19. The counsel relies upon the judgment reported in
2026 SCC ONLINE SC 454 in the case of SUJOY GHOSH vs
- 18 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER and brought to
notice of this Court paragraph 14 wherein also discussion was
made by the Court that when an accused seeks quashing of FIR
or criminal proceedings on the ground that such proceedings
are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or malicious, the court its
duty bound to examine the matter with greater care.
20. The counsel in his arguments also contend that
there are material improvements in the second complaint. In
this regard, the counsel relies upon the judgment reported in
2026 SCC ONLINE SC 915 in the case of BHIKHUBHAI
GOVINDBHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF
GUJARAT AND ANOTHER and brought to notice of this court
paragraphs 40 and 41 wherein the Apex Court discussed with
regard to exercising of powers by the High Court, despite
noting down the sequence of events, failed to examine the legal
effect of suppression of the earlier complaint and the material
improvement introduced in the subsequent impugned FIR. So
also delay in registration of the FIR is another circumstance
which cannot be ignored.
21. The counsel would contend that if the ingredients of
the SC/ST Act are not made out, there was no public view. In
- 19 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
this regard, the counsel relies upon the judgment reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 710 in the case of HITESH VERMA vs STATE
OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER and brought to notice of
this court paragraphs 12, 13, 17 and 24, where discussion was
made with regard to the basic ingredients of the offences and in
paragraph 17 referred the judgment of Khuman Singh vs
State of M.P. ([2020] 18 SCC 763) and extracted paragraph
15 of the said judgment. In paragraph 24 comes to the
conclusion that the charges against the appellant under Section
3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out.
22. The counsel relies upon the judgment reported in
(2023) 17 SCC 615 in the case of RAMESH CHANDRA
VAISHYA vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
and brought to notice of this court paragraphs 17, 18 and 23
wherein also discussion was made with regard to invoking of
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, so also the
scope of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was also discussed in the said
judgment and in paragraph 23 taken note of counter-affidavit
filed by the first respondent State in the present proceeding,
there is no material worthy of consideration in this behalf
except a bald statement that the complainant sustained
multiple injuries in his hand and other body parts.
- 20 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
23. The counsel also relies upon the judgment reported
in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 2249 in the case of SHAJAN
SKARIA vs STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER and brought
to notice of this court paragraphs 57, 58, 60, 62, 69, 70, 74
and 80. The counsel referring these paragraphs vehemently
contend that the Apex Court in detail taken note of basic
ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of
the SC/ST Act. So also insults or intimidations to a member of
the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not amount to an
offence under the Act, 1989 unless such insult or intimidation is
on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe.
24. The counsel also relies upon the Judgment reported
in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 215 in the case of
KARUPPUDAYAR vs STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LALGUDI TRICHY AND
OTHERS and brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 9 to 13
wherein also discussion was made with regard to Section
3(1)(r) so also, determination within public view and the
allegations in the FIR at their face value, it would reveal that
what is alleged is that when the complainant was in his office
the accused came there, enquired with the complainant, not
- 21 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
being satisfied, started abusing him in the name of his caste
and insulted.
25. The counsel also relies upon the judgment reported
in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1499 in the case of KONDE
NAGESHWAR RAO vs A SRIRAMA CHANDRA MURTY AND
ANOTHER and brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 22 to
25 wherein held that perusal of the complaint would also
indicate that grievance was not really relatable to the false and
malicious involvement in the criminal proceedings against the
appellant and his family members because of them belonging
to scheduled caste and also discussed the judgment of Dr.
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra
([2018] 6 SCC 454) in paragraph 24 and in paragraph 25
conclusions arrived.
26. The counsel also relies upon the judgment reported
in (2026) 8 SCC 138 in the case of GUNJAN ALIAS GIRIJA
KUMARI AND OTHERS vs STATE (NCT OF HELHI) AND
ANOTHER and brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 13 to
31 wherein also ingredients of the offence under Section
3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was discussed in detail
from paragraphs 13 to 17 and so also in paragraph 31 comes to
- 22 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
the conclusion that all material facts go to suggest that the
alleged incident took place in a private place and within 4 walls
of the house of respondent No.2 complainant and the
appellants who are all are family members.
27. The counsel also relies upon the judgment reported
in 2026 SCC ONLINE SC 1676 in the case of RAMKRISHNA
CHAUHAN vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER and brought to
notice of this Court paragraphs 12 to 18 wherein Apex Court
held that FIR does not state that the alleged caste-based
abuses were uttered in the presence or hearing of members of
the public and hence, the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the SC/St Act are not prima facie made out against
the appellant.
28. The counsel appearing for the petitioners relying
upon these judgments would vehemently contend that the
complaint is frivolous, vexatious and made with an afterthought
and there was a delay of more than 8 months in lodging the
complaint and the same is vindictive and the same is a counter
blast as complainant was terminated and there are material
improvements between two complaints and there is no
ingredients of the alleged offences in the said complaint.
- 23 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
29. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State
would vehemently contend that the internal investigation is
conducted based on the complaint and it was delayed. The
misconduct by complainant cannot be a ground to harass her.
Even though petitioners contend that there was misconduct by
complainant relying upon the documents, the same cannot be
considered at this stage since it is a matter of trial. The counsel
would vehemently contend that the relief sought in the petition
is for quashing of the FIR. Court has to look into the allegations
made in the complaint and not otherwise and the same has to
be investigated by the IO and IO has to unearth the truth
during the course of investigation. Without conducting any
investigation, there cannot be any quashment.
30. Though complainant appeared through the counsel,
but he is absent while hearing the matter. Hence, taken as no
arguments from the complainant side.
31. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the State
and considering the principles laid down in the judgments
referred supra and also on perusal of the material on record,
the Point that would arise for consideration of this petition is:
- 24 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
1. Whether the petitioners have made out the
grounds to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C on
the ground that the complaint is vindictive,
vexatious and frivolous one and even there
was a delay in lodging the complaint and the
same was filed as counter-blast and there are
material improvements in the second
complaint and whether invoking of SC/ST Act
is an afterthought?
2. What order?
Point No.1:
32. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1/State and also on perusal of the
material on record, it discloses that the Court has to take note
of the contents of the complaint. Having perused the contents
of the complaint at Annexure-A, it discloses that the specific
three incidents are referred in the said complaint i.e., dated
29.05.2018, 30.05.2018 and so also 30.06.2018 and specific
accusations are also made against each of the petitioners. No
doubt, this complaint was given on 11.02.2019. Based on this
complaint, FIR was registered at Annexure-C and one more
complaint dated 08.07.2019 which was received on 18.07.2019
was filed i.e., almost after 5 months of the first complaint. The
- 25 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
specific contention of the petitioners that in the second
complaint, there is an improvement and an afterthought, the
said complaint was filed only with an intention to invoke the
offences under SC/ST Act. No doubt, prior to this complaint,
the petitioners have held disciplinary hearing against the
complainant and complainant was reprimanded for violating the
bank's code of conduct and these have been done in the year
2016 and complainant was put on PIP on 24.05.2018 and email
was issued on 25.05.2018 to the complainant to that effect that
going to check the iPad. The issue started between them when
the sweep check of iPad of the complainant was conducted by
the bank on 29.05.2018 and the allegation that she was abused
by the petitioners on both dates i.e., on 29.05.2018 and on
30.05.2018. It is also to be noted that complainant took
unauthorized leave from 24.07.2018 to 13.09.2018. But during
this time only, the complainant lodged the complaint with the
Karnataka State Commission for Women i.e., on 03.09.2018
and complainant wrote an email to the Bank’s Internal
Complaints Portal on 26.09.2018 i.e., subsequently having
lodged the complaint with Karnataka State Commission for
Women during the leave period. Subsequent to the joining, the
complaints are given before various authorities.
- 26 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
33. It is also noticed that prior to lodging of complaint
with the Bank's Grievance Redressal Cell, already the complaint
was lodged with the Karnataka State Commission for Women
on 03.09.2018 by the complainant during the unauthorized
leave. The complainant wrote email to the Bank’s Internal
Complaints portal on 26.09.2018 and the same is subsequent
to the filing of complaint with the Karnataka State Commission
for Women. It is not in dispute that complainant had lodged the
complaint with National Human Rights Commission on
06.12.2018.
34. It is important to note that alleged incident in the
complaint is in the month of May 2018 but immediately even
not approached either the State Women Police Commission or
even had lodged the same with the Redressal committee of the
very bank. But the complaint was filed in the month of
February, 2019 as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the
petitioners i.e., on 11.02.2019. It is also important to note that
the additional complaint was also filed wherein the allegation of
caste discrimination was made after 5 months of first
complaint. If really it is in the knowledge of the complainant as
of the date of filing of the complaint on 11.02.2019, the same
would have been mentioned in the first complaint itself, but the
- 27 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
same is mentioned in the second complaint. Hence, the same is
nothing but an afterthought. It is also clear that complainant
was terminated from the service in the month of July 2019.
Even prior to the filing of this complaint, as there was various
unprofessional acts of misconduct, in the year 2016 itself, the
complainant was reprimanded. The date of the incident which is
alleged in the complaint is a date when Sweep check of iPad
was made and the same is a routine work of the company. The
complainant even took the unauthorized leave and during the
said period only, made up her mind to lodge the complaint with
the Karnataka State Commission for Women. No doubt, the
internal committee report goes against the complainant. Even
with regard to the PoSH Act is concerned, enquiry is also
distinct from criminal conduct of allegations. But there is an
inordinate delay in filing the complaint invoking IPC offences
and an afterthought, invoked SC/ST offences. Having taken
note of factual aspects of the complaints at Annexure-A and B,
it discloses that there was a delay and an afterthought, made
the allegations. If really, the complainant was subjected to
harassment, either sexual harassment or any other harassment
that too continuously on 29.05.2018, 30.05.2018 and also on
30.06.2018, she would have given the complaint immediately.
- 28 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
But no complaint is given immediately after the incident. Only
during the unauthorized leave period from 24.07.2018 to
13.09.2018, on 03.09.2018, for the first time, complaint was
lodged with the Karnataka State Commission for women and
thereafter, approached the different forums including Bank’s
Grievances Redressal Cell. The report of the Redressal Cell is
not in favour of the complainant.
35. The fact is that the complainant was terminated
from the service on 26.07.2019 taking into note of the conduct
of the complainant in the year 2016 onwards and the present
complaint is filed on 11.02.2019. Thus, the principles laid down
in the judgments referred supra by the counsel appearing for
the petitioners are aptly applicable to the case on hand as held
by the Apex Court in respect of the grounds urged in the
petition. No doubt, the statement of some of the witnesses
were recorded subsequent to the registration of the case. The
allegations are also made against the co-employees of the
department. Even the appellate authority also found that there
was no merit in the appeal to the grievance outcome. Having
taken note of these materials as well as second complaint
dated 08.07.2019 (received on 18.07.2019), it discloses that in
order to wreck vengeance against other co-employees, the
- 29 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
complaint is filed as held in Bhajan Lal ’s case . If really it is
within the knowledge of the complainant and if such incident
was taken place in the month of May 2018 subjecting the
complainant for sexual harassment as well as other harassment
including caste discrimination, she would have approached
immediately either the police or the grievance redressal forum
of the bank. But that has not been done. Apart from that there
was a delay in lodging the complaint. The present complaint
was lodged as a counter-blast as contended by the counsel
appearing for the petitioners and also found material
improvements as contended by the petitioners’ counsel in order
to invoke the offences under Section SC/ST Act in view of the
judgments of the Apex Court from 2020 onwards, referred
supra, which comes to the aid of the petitioners herein. Hence,
it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C or otherwise, it amounts to miscarriage of justice.
36. Moreover, the report of the Redressal Cell is distinct
from the allegations made in the complaint. But having
considered the allegations, it discloses that an afterthought, the
present complaints are filed with an inordinate delay of more
than 8 months and again after 5 months of the first complaint.
Thus, there cannot be any criminal prosecution against the
- 30 -
CRL.P No. 6644 of 2019
petitioners. If a person suffers from its face value, then criminal
prosecution is sustainable against that person and the court can
also exercise its powers. But in the case on hand, the same is
not warranted. Hence, the petitioners have made out a grounds
to quash the proceedings initiated against them exercising the
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, answered the
above point as affirmative.
Point No.2:
37. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The complaint dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure-
A); another complaint dated 08.07.2019
received on 18.07.2019 (Annexure-B) and the
FIR registered in Cr.No.44/2019 (Annexure-C)
against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN