Senior Hospital Head Cleared of Harassment Charges; Court Quashes FIR as 'Counterblast' After Official Was Hit with a Slipper

The Petitioner, a Medical Superintendent at ESIC Hospital, Vapi, sought to quash Criminal Case No. 1445 of 2025 arising from FIR I-C.R. No. 107 of 2019.

The Complainant, a female security guard employed by a third-party agency, alleged that on 15.06.2019, the Petitioner molested her in his cabin and made inappropriate propositions.

She further alleged that on 16.11.2019, after being terminated from her job, she and others confronted the Petitioner in his office, where he allegedly abused them, leading her to hit him with a slipper.

The Petitioner contended that the FIR was a malicious counterblast to his administrative actions against corrupt staff and an NC complaint he filed against the Complainant for physical assault and trespass.

He noted he had no authority over her employment as she worked for an independent agency.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, prima facie constitute the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354D, and 504 of the IPC.

2. Whether the criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted as a counterblast to the Petitioner’s administrative reforms and his prior complaint of physical assault.

The court applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which established categories for quashing, including cases where allegations are inherently improbable or attended with mala fides.

The court referenced State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy regarding the necessity of quashing "lame prosecutions" to secure the ends of justice.

For the specific charge of Section 504 IPC, it applied the principles from Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, requiring intentional insult aimed at provoking a breach of public peace.

The Court observed that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained five-month delay, coinciding exactly with the day the Complainant was terminated by her third-party employer.

It found that the Petitioner, as Medical Superintendent, lacked direct administrative control over the security agency's staff, making the motive for the confrontation in his office legally baseless.

The Court noted that the internal administration had deliberately withheld complaints from the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), supporting the Petitioner’s claim of an internal conspiracy by disgruntled staff facing disciplinary actions.

Regarding Section 504 IPC, the court reasoned that because the Complainant admitted to initiating physical violence (hitting the Petitioner with a slipper) after trespassing into his office, the Petitioner's verbal response could not be viewed as an intentional provocation of a breach of peace, but rather a reaction to an escalating law-and-order situation.

The Court concluded that the FIR was a "manifestly weaponized" retaliatory counterblast intended to harass a public official for performing his duties. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1445 of 2025 and the underlying FIR No. 107 of 2019 qua the Petitioner.