Existence of a Visakha Committee clean chit does not warrant quashing criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists.

The petitioner, a Regional Manager at Shri Ram Finance Limited, was accused of sexual harassment by a subordinate employee (Respondent No. 2).

The complainant alleged that after she failed to complete a specific task, the petitioner repeatedly called her to his chamber and requested sexual favors.

Following these allegations, FIR No. 41/2024 was registered on 28.01.2024 at Police Station Gandhi Nagar for offenses under Sections 354-A, 354-D, and 509 of the IPC.

The petitioner sought quashment of the FIR and the resulting criminal proceedings (Case No. 180/24), asserting that he had been exonerated by the Visakha Committee and that the charges were a retaliatory measure for the complainant's poor work performance.

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC in light of his exoneration by an internal Visakha Committee.

2. Whether the allegations in the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC prima facie establish the commissioned offenses despite the petitioner’s defense of false implication.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the CrPC regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings.

It relied on established judicial principles stating that prosecution should not be stifled at the threshold if allegations have substance or if uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish an offense.

The court also considered the substantive offenses under the Indian Penal Code: Section 354-A (Sexual harassment), Section 354-D (Stalking), and Section 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman).

The Court observed that while the Visakha Committee provided the petitioner with a "clean chit," such findings do not automatically override criminal proceedings where a prima facie case exists.

The Court scrutinized the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, noting specific allegations of sexual harassment that indicated the petitioner’s involvement.

The Bench reasoned that the petitioner’s claims—regarding the complainant's failure to meet targets and the internal committee's report—constituted a defense that must be tested during the trial through evidence.

Applying the standard for Section 482, the Court determined it could not "embark upon an inquiry" into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations at this stage, as the charge sheet had already been filed and the Magistrate had taken cognizance.

The Court dismissed the petition, vacated the previous interim order, and directed the matter to proceed to trial.