Sexual-harassment FIR quashed where consensual relationship and retaliatory counterblast were apparent from the record.

The applicant, a practicing doctor and owner of a hospital at Vyara, sought quashing of FIR No. 11824001241268 of 2024 registered at Vyara Police Station under Sections 354A(1)(i) and 504 of the IPC, invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The first informant, an employee at the applicant’s hospital, alleged that the applicant made inappropriate physical contact and sexual advances towards her between January and April 2024 and sent sexually coloured messages.

The FIR was registered on 12 July 2024, after the informant had approached the police on 29 June 2024 and filed a private complaint before the Magistrate on 8 July 2024.

The applicant contended that the allegations were delayed, consensual, and motivated as a counterblast to an FIR lodged by his wife against the informant and another employee for alleged financial fraud exceeding ₹3 crore.

The State and the informant opposed quashing, asserting that the FIR disclosed the alleged offences and that consent and disputed factual matters could not be determined at the quashing stage.

The Court had earlier granted interim protection against coercive steps on 30 September 2024; the Supreme Court declined to interfere with that order on 19 December 2024.

Whether the FIR and the consequential proceedings under Sections 354A(1)(i) and 504 of the IPC disclosed a prosecutable case against the applicant warranting continuation of investigation and trial.

Whether the FIR was liable to be quashed because of the delay in its registration, the alleged consensual nature of the relationship, and its character as a counterblast to the financial-fraud FIR lodged by the applicant’s wife.

Whether the High Court could examine the material collected during investigation, including chats, photographs, and witness statements, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The FIR invoked Sections 354A(1)(i) and 504 of the Indian Penal Code concerning sexual harassment and intentional insult.

The Court considered the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings referred to in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, particularly the power to quash proceedings where the allegations and surrounding material show that continuation of the prosecution would be an abuse of process.

It also applied the principle that disputed questions ordinarily requiring appreciation of evidence should not be conclusively determined at the threshold, although the Court examined the investigation material in the circumstances of the present case.

The Court found that the alleged conduct was stated to have continued from January to April 2024, but the complaint was made only in late June and July 2024, without a plausible explanation for the delay.

Statements of the informant’s colleagues recorded during investigation indicated that she had not disclosed the alleged incidents to them, while the record showed that she continued working at the hospital and participated in hospital and family celebrations after the alleged commencement of the conduct.

The chats between the applicant and the informant showed regular communication and, in the Court’s assessment, a romantic relationship; the Court noted that the informant had not objected to sexually coloured messages and had responded to some of them.

The Court also relied on the sequence of complaints: the applicant’s wife had submitted a financial-fraud complaint on 17 June 2024, resulting in an FIR on 8 July 2024, whereas the present FIR was registered on 12 July 2024.

On this material, the Court concluded that the relationship appeared consensual and that the sexual-harassment FIR was a counterblast to the financial-fraud proceedings, rather than a genuine criminal prosecution requiring continuation.

Rule was made absolute.