MP HC Quashes Sexual Harassment, SC/ST Act FIR Against Hospital Superintendent, Finding Co-Accused’s Reference Alone Didn’t Show His Involvement

Respondent No. 2, a Nursing Officer, alleged that on 28 October 2025 co-accused Dr. Shivam Yadav, Head of the Nephrology Department, abused and threatened her, made an alleged demand that she maintain physical relations with the petitioner, and caught hold of her hand.

The FIR named both men and invoked Sections 74, 75 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The petitioner, then Superintendent of the hospital, sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), arguing that the FIR alleged no specific criminal act by him and that the proceedings arose amid prior departmental complaints and action against respondent No. 2.

Respondent No. 2 disputed the departmental documents and relied on further allegations of messages and statements made before a Magistrate.

The State opposed quashing.

Section 528 BNSS empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court and secure the ends of justice.

Under R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, proceedings may be quashed, among other circumstances, where the allegations, taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence or where proceedings are manifestly mala fide.

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, cautions that quashing jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and ordinarily should not thwart investigation or involve a meticulous assessment of evidence.

The alleged offences were under Sections 74, 75 and 351(3) BNS and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act; the Court assessed whether the material disclosed the ingredients of those offences against this petitioner individually.

The Court found that the alleged incident occurred in Dr. Yadav’s chamber and that the FIR attributed the abusive and caste-related language, physical contact, threat and alleged demand for physical relations to him, not to the petitioner.

The co-accused’s alleged reference to the petitioner did not, without material showing the petitioner’s instigation, agreement or intentional participation, establish his criminal liability.

The Court also considered the subsequent allegations of messages and communications but found no specific particulars or supporting material demonstrated before it connecting the petitioner to the offences.

Prior departmental complaints and proceedings were treated as relevant surrounding circumstances, alongside the absence of a specific overt act; the Court did not resolve the disputed authenticity or service of the departmental documents as a separate factual issue.

It concluded that the material, considered cumulatively, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner.

It quashed Crime No. 356/2025 and all consequential criminal proceedings only insofar as they related to Dr. Girja Shankar Gupta.

The order did not affect proceedings or investigation concerning any other accused, subject to the separate order concerning Dr. Shivam Yadav; no order as to costs was made.