Gujarat High Court
Anil Kumar Sahar vs State Of Gujarat on 30 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 21577 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ANIL KUMAR SAHAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. TEJAS BAROT, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MS. RHEA
CHOKSHI(10808) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 30/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner before this Court by way of the present petition has
invoked provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Prosecutor, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), praying to quash the
proceedings of Criminal Case No.1445 of 2025, pending before the
Court of learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Vapi, arising from FIR being I.C.R. No.107 of 2019,
lodged before the Vapi GIDC Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 354A, 354D and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code 1860 (for short “IPC“).
2. The facts of the FIR in nutshell are that the complainant
Page 1 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
employed as a female security guard with Ashish Uppal Security
Agency, having its head office at Ahmedabad, assigned duties at the
hospital. On 15.06.2019, the complainant was present on duty as a
security guard during the first shift, at that time, at about 12:00 hours
in noon, present petitioner called her fellow worker Arpita into his
cabin. After five to ten minutes, she went into petitioner’s cabin, at
that time, petitioner was forcing himself upon Arpita, petitioner also
grabbed complainant’s hand forcefully and hugged and kissed her,
so they both left the office, and did not discuss this matter with
anyone at that time. Thereafter, the petitioner told the complainant,
“My wife goes to the Gurdwara on Wednesdays. You come to my
house on Wednesday. My salary is Rupees two to three lakh. I will
give you whatever you want.” After that, complainant left his office
and informed her supervisor, Shankarbhai, about this conversation,
requesting him to file a written complaint with the hospital
committee. Later, when the complainant was heading home after
finishing her duty for the day, petitioner followed her and got to
know her home address. Subsequently, whenever she went for duty
at the hospital, petitioner frequently molested her. Therefore, on
19.06.2019, she submitted an application regarding this matter at the
hospital. Since the petitioner was also frequently molesting Puja,
who worked as a security guard alongside complainant, she too
submitted an application regarding this at the hospital. As Arpita has
already quit her job and left, complainant does not know her current
whereabouts.
Page 2 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
2.1. On 16.11.2019, complainant, Pujaben Navinbhai, and other
security personnel on duty with us arrived for duty in the morning as
usual. When they requested the attendance register – which is
maintained at the hospital for marking attendance and is kept with
security company’s supervisor Shankar Gavli to sign it, he did not
give it. Furthermore, while reporting for duty at the hospital, bio-
metric punching is required; when they went to punch in, they were
not allowed to punch in and was informed that they had been
terminated from job. Therefore, to ascertain the reason for
termination, they had to meet Anil Sir, so they remained seated at
the hospital. At around 9:00 a.m., Dr. Anil Sir arrived and stated,
“evict those who are not on duty from the hospital,” and went into
his office. After that, complainant called her husband, informed him
of the above facts, and asked him to come to the hospital. Thereafter,
the complainant, her husband, Pujaben and her husband Navinbhai
went to Room No. 101 to meet Dr. Anil, at that time, Nayanaben and
Laxmiben, who were on security duty there, told us, “whatever you
want to ask, ask your supervisor.” Upon them saying this, they told
them that they wanted to meet petitioner to know why they were
terminated. Saying this, they entered the petitioner’s office, at that
time, Dharmendrabhai and Vajpayee, a guard from our security
company, were present in the office. When they asked the petitioner
why he had terminated them, he told them, “I have not terminated
you.” After saying this, he started hurling filthy verbal abuses at
them. Therefore, Puja and complainant asked him why he was
Page 3 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
abusing them. Despite saying this, he continued to verbally abuse us.
Hence, complainant hit him with a slipper. Thereupon, petitioner and
the security guard pushed them out and locked the office from
inside. After that, complainant called the police, and the police
arrived and brought both complainant and petitioner to the police
station. At that time, she did not have her caste certificate, she stated
that she would procure the same later. Hence, the present
petition.
3. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service for
respondent – State.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Tejas Barot for learned advocate
Ms. Rhea Chokshi for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
joined ESIC as Insurance Medical Officer on 26.06.1991 and is
working as a Medical Superintendent at ESIC Hospital, Vapi since
14.09.2018, pursuant to order passed by the ESIC Headquarter, New
Delhi. The present posting of the petitioner is for a period of three
years, the petitioner is in Senior Administrative Grade. The
petitioner has an unblemished record in his entire career spanning
over 28 years.
4.1. After the petitioner came to be transferred as Medical
Superintendent of Vapi, he undertook and brought radical changes to
the entire establishment. The changes introduced by the petitioner
are to the effect that:
Page 4 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
(i) Earlier OPD turnout hardly 30 to 35 patients per day, which
after improvement of medical facilities has reason to more
than 450 patients per day, in that view, the bed strength for
indoor patients is increased from 50 beds to 100 beds to be
effective from 27.11.2019;
(ii) Cataract Surgery started in June, 2019 and more than 50
patients successfully operated on;
(iii) Three Part Hematological Analyzer installed on
26.07.2019 to in pathology department for blood investigation
in serious ailments like Dengue, Chikanguniya, etc. at bare
minimum cost of just Rs.22/- for entire investigation as against
the cost for Rs.200/- at private facility;
(iv) High Dependency Unit started for patients requiring close
and continuous monitoring under Acute Patient Care
Monitoring employing necessary devices and apparatus;
(v) Labour Room started for the first time after the hospital
was established in the year 1958, to extend medical facilities
to underprivileged section of working labour class;
(vi) Anti Natal Card for assessing timely growth of fetus in the
above said working labour class who are otherwise deprived of
such medical care and timely monitoring required for healthy
delivery of newborn;
(vii) National Immunization Programme started for children in
the age group upto 12 years for vaccination;
(viii) Life saving devices such as Ventilator, Acute Patient
Care Monitors installed;
(ix) In the Pediatric Department permanent pediatrician
appointed by the Head Quarter pursuant to the petitioner’s
persistent efforts, whereby, earlier such pediatrician was
working as part time contractual specialist;
(x) The petitioner also requested the Head Quarter to appoint
on permanent basis specialists to provide specialized treatment
to ESIC beneficiaries and their dependents, such as pathologist
for in house investigation instead of referring the patient to
outside facilities, gynecologist, anesthetist, surgeon, physician
and orthopedician.
Page 5 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
(xi) Requisition sent to Property Management Department at
Head Quarter, New Delhi and Regional Director, Gujarat for
renovation of operation theatre which is in complete
dilapidated condition to provide in house secondary care
facilities to ESIC Insured person (beneficiary) and their
dependents.
4.2. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that ever since
the petitioner came to be transferred from his Head Quarter to Vapi
Hospital as Medical Superintendent, the petitioner noticed serious
illegalities and irregularities committed by the staff members of the
hospital. The petitioner noticed irregularities with respect to three
senior persons viz. Shri Pankaj N. Parmar, Deputy Director,
Administration and Shri Rohit Chand Deep, Assistant Director,
Finance.
4.3. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that though the
petitioner worked sincerely and diligently to bring above said
necessary changes in the hospital to extend maximum benefit to
ESIC beneficiaries, the above said miscreants viz. Shri Pankaj
Parmar, Rohit Chand Deep and Rao Rajesh Yadav, found ways to
disrupt progress of the hospital.
4.4. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that Shri P. N. Parmar
who is Deputy Director, Administration has been indulging in illegal
activities ever since came to be transferred to Vapi. Shri P. N.
Parmar along with Rao Rajesh Yadav have been asking for bribe
from various outsourcing agencies in order to clear their payments
Page 6 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
like Diet, Housekeeping, Security Agencies and others. Verbal
complaints have been made to the petitioner as the Head of the
Hospital. The above said persons did not mark presence in
attendance register and took leave without making online submission
thereof despite repeated requests. Shri Rohit Chand Deep is in the
habit of remaining absent for long hauls and subsequently marking
presence in attendance register even for the days when he remained
absent. The said persons indulged into serious illegal activities also
and when confronted by the petitioner resorted to serious
subordination and overruling. In this behalf, the petitioner repeatedly
warned the said three persons when their behavior did not improve,
the petitioner was compelled to make complaints to the Head
Quarter. The petitioner even issued memo Rohit Chand Deep who is
not even bothered to reply the same.
4.5. Learned Senior Counsel therefore would submit that it is
crystal clear that after his transfer a head of institution, as Medical
Superintendent, the petitioner made honest and sincere endeavour to
bring about the substantial and necessary changes to extend all the
benefits to the maximum number of eligible beneficiaries. However,
the said honest attempts of the petitioner were in the way of
dishonest, corrupt and unscrupulous persons as Shri Parmar, Shri
Yadav and Shri Deep, who tried to settle the score with the petitioner
by stooping to the lowest level. The said person conspired with the
employees of the security agency to level absolutely false and
uncalled for allegations against the petitioner only with a view to
Page 7 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
thwarting the petitioner’s attempt to take legal action against them.
4.6. He would further submit that the petitioner never indulged into
any act which could be remotely termed as alleged in the impugned
FIR. Despite that at the instigation of the above said persons, the
informant had filed a complaint against the alleged act of the
petitioner on 19.06.2019. However, the said complaint was required
to be forwarded to the external member of female harassment
committee namely Dr. Supriya Santosh Alshi who is heading
external dispencenary housed in the hospital itself. The malafide
intent of the above said persons in causing harassment complaint to
be filed against the petitioner and seeing to it that the same is not
supplied to the external member of female harassment committee is
just to ensure that there is no impartial and unbiased investigation
into the same. In that behalf Dr. Supriya Santosh Alshi also
addressed a letter on 28.06.2019 to Medical Commissioner, ESIC
Head Quarter wherein she has specifically mentioned about
development of the society after joining of the present petitioner.
The said communication was followed by another communication
dated 01.07.2019 to supply the copy of the complaint to the said Dr.
Alshi. It appears that even though requested copies of the complaints
were not made available to Dr. Supriya Santosh Alshi.
4.7. He would also submit that the contract for providing security
at ESIC Hospital is awarded by Director General of Resettlement to
Security Agency established by retired defence personnel above of
Page 8 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
specific rank. The contract for providing security at Vapi Hospital
had been awarded to the security agency of one Shri Ashish Uppal, a
retired Major of Army. The petitioner has nothing to do with
selection of the agency and the agency’s terms of contract with his
employees including recruiting, their salaries, etc.
4.8. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that some of the
employees of the security agency were found to be delinquent in
their duty and complaints were made by the staff members of the
hospital against their conduct and behavior necessitated the action at
the end of the security agency and has nothing to do with the
petitioner. It appears that the security agency took a decision to
terminate the services of the some of the lady employees including
informant of the impugned FIR. In that view of the matter, the said
informant, under the mistaken belief that it was the petitioner who
had the authority to terminate the services, along with other
headstrong persons as well as medial persons, in a premeditated and
preplanned move at the behest of Shri P. N. Parmar, Shri Rao Rajesh
Yadav and Rohit Chand Deep, barged in the office of the petitioner
in the morning hours of 16.11.2019 and created a law and order
situation in the chamber of the petitioner resorting to filthy language
and physical assault on the petitioner. When the situation slipped out
of control, the petitioner had to call for police. In order to save their
skin, the respondent No. 2 falsely filed impugned FIR making
uncalled for and baseless allegations. It is inter alia alleged that on
15.06.2019, she was harassed by the petitioner and in that behalf, she
Page 9 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
had made a complaint on 19.06.2019 to the hospital. It is further
alleged that other lady employees of the security agency were also
harassed by the petitioner. It is further alleged that on 16.11.2019
when the respondent No.2 informant and Poojaben reported for duty
at that time they were not allowed to join the duty and therefore,
they approached the present petitioner. It is further alleged that when
asked, the petitioner told those who were not on duty were to be
relieved. It is further alleged that when the respondent No.2 asked to
know the reason, the petitioner started abusing them and therefore,
the respondent No.2 hurled chappal and thereafter, she was driven
out of the chamber and therefore, she called police.
4.9. Learned Senior Counsel from what is argued hereinabove
would submit that it becomes crystal clear that the petitioner has not
committed any offence but on the contrary the petitioner is targeted
by above said unscrupulous elements. In fact it was the informant –
respondent No. 2 herein clearly acting at the behest of Shri Parmar,
Shri Yadav and Shri Deep, resorted to illegal and high handed action
and physically assaulted the petitioner and in this behalf the petition
filed a complaint which was not registered as an FIR but was
registered as a non cognizable case bearing No. 14 of 2019 for
offences under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of IPC and the said
complaint, the petition specifically pointed out that when the
petitioner came to the hospital, thereafter, at 10:45 a.m. he was
informed by Supervisor Gawli that about 80 men, women and media
had stormed into hospital premises and were about to create ruckus
Page 10 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
and therefore, the petitioner informed S.P, Valsad. Despite that, the
persons entered the hospital and out of them, Rinkalben and
Poojaben hurled chappals at the petitioner and started abusing the
petitioner by filthy language and damaged the government property
as well. The reason behind the same was that the both of them were
not allowed to resume duty on the day of incident and they suspected
the petitioner was behind it.
4.10. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the
impugned FIR is sheer abuse of provisions of Penal Code as though
no offence as alleged ever happened, purely with a view to harassing
the petitioner the impugned FIR is filed. The petitioner after being
transferred to ESIC Hospital, Vapi as Medical Superintendent
remarkably developed the hospital and his honesty and hard work
earned him accolades and are also the reason for him become the
target of unscrupulous element. The petitioner who went by the rule
book did not find favour many from the establishment who are
instrumental in getting the impugned FIR filed. The impugned FIR
which is filed malafide and oblique motive is therefore required to
be quashed.
4.11. At last, learned Senior Counsel would argue that the alleged
offences under Sections 354A, 354D and 504 of IPC are not made
out against the petitioner and the required averments to invoke the
alleged provisions had not been made in the present FIR and
therefore, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed.
Page 11 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
5. Though served, none appears for the original complainant –
respondent No.2 herein.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecute Mr. Rohan
Shah for the respondent – State would submit that what has been
argued by the learned Senior Counsel can be decided during the trial
while appreciating evidence and that this Court should not conduct a
mini trial while deciding quashing petition, more particularly, when
a prima facie case from the reading of the FIR itself is made out, and
the complaint is also lodged before the Internal Complaint
Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Under such
circumstances, there cannot be any presumption with regards to
innocent of the present petitioner, and thus, argued to reject the
present petition.
7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions,
perused the material placed on record, and carefully examined the
statutory provisions in light of settled judicial precedents.
8. The scope and extent of the inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings are well
settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark decision of
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, laid down
illustrative categories where such power ought to be exercised to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of
Page 12 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
justice. The relevant observations are:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
Page 13 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding
is instituted) to the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
9. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy reported
in (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404 : 1977 SCC OnLine SC
112 at page 702, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has thus held:
“7. The second limb of Mr Mookerjee’s
argument is that in any event the High Court could
not take upon itself the task of assessing orPage 14 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
appreciating the weight of material on the record
in order to find whether any charges could be
legitimately framed against the respondents. So
long as there is some material on the record to
connect the accused with the crime, says the
learned counsel, the case must go on and the High
Court has no jurisdiction to put a precipitate or
premature end to the proceedings on the belief
that the prosecution is not likely to succeed. This,
in our opinion, is too broad a proposition to
accept. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 2 of 1974, provides that:
“If, upon consideration of the record of the case
and the documents submitted therewith, and after
hearing the submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that
there is not sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused, he shall discharge the
accused and record his reasons for so doing.”
This section is contained in Chapter 18 called
“Trial Before a Court of Session”. It is clear from
the provision that the Sessions Court has the
power to discharge an accused if after perusing
the record and hearing the parties he comes to the
conclusion, for reasons to be recorded, that there
is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The object of the provision which
requires the Sessions Judge to record his reasons
is to enable the superior court to examine the
correctness of the reasons for which the Sessions
Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. The
High Court therefore is entitled to go into the
reasons given by the Sessions Judge in support of
his order and to determine for itself whether the
order is justified by the facts and circumstances of
Page 15 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
the case. Section 482 of the New Code, which
corresponds to Section 561-A of the Code of 1898,
provides that:
“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or
affect the inherent powers of the High Court to
make such orders as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under this Code or to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or other wise to
secure the ends of justice.”
In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes
to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process of the
Court or that the ends of justice require that the
proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the
High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and
criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary
public purpose which is that a court proceeding
ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment or persecution. In a
criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame
prosecution, the very nature of the material on
which the structure of the prosecution rests and
the like would justify the High Court in quashing
the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends
of justice are higher than the ends of mere law
though justice has got to be administered
according to laws made by the legislature. The
compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper realisation of
the object and purpose of the provision which
seeks to save the inherent powers of the High
Court to do justice, between the State and its
subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the
width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.”
Page 16 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
10. A careful examination of the allegations in the FIR reveals
significant inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities:
The primary incident of alleged molestation and
harassment is stated to have occurred on 15.06.2019.
However, no formal police complaint was registered at
that time. The FIR in question was lodged only on
16.11.2019 – after an unexplainable delay of five
months, and precisely on the day the complainant was
informed of her service termination by her employer (the
security agency). While delay alone may not always be
fatal in sexual harassment allegations, an unexplained
delay coupled with an immediate intervening dispute
regarding employment termination strongly points
toward premeditation and ulterior motives.
The records reflect that when an internal complaint was
addressed to Dr. Supriya Santosh Alshi (heading the
external committee on female harassment), the
administrative staff facing disciplinary inquiries from the
petitioner purposefully withheld the complaints from
her. This corroborates the petitioner’s submission that
the complaint mechanism was manipulated internally to
thwart his administrative actions against corrupt
employees.
The petitioner, as Medical Superintendent, exercised no
direct administrative control over the employment or
termination of third-party security staff contracted
through an independent agency. Attributing her
termination to the petitioner to justify barging into his
office and initiating physical violence exhibits clear
high-handedness.
Page 17 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
The record demonstrates that the complainant was an
employee of a third-party private security agency
(Ashish Uppal Security Agency). The administrative
control, deployment, and service termination rested
exclusively with the agency. The petitioner, as Medical
Superintendent of the hospital, possessed no direct
power to terminate her service. The confrontation in the
petitioner’s chamber on 16.11.2019 was triggered by a
mistaken assumption that the petitioner was behind her
termination.
The FIR mentions that the alleged initial incident was
witnessed by co-worker Arpita, yet the complainant
admits that Arpita left her job immediately and her
whereabouts are unknown. Similarly, internal
administrative communications on record reveal that
attempts by the head of the hospital’s Internal
Complaints Committee (ICC), Dr. Supriya Santosh
Alshi, to obtain copies of the representations were
repeatedly thwarted or unsupported by specific details,
casting serious doubt on the veracity of the complaint.
The statement of Mr. Dharmendra, I.T. Assistant if taken
into consideration would reveal that no such incidence
has taken place in the chamber of the petitioner.
11. The record contains substantial material showing that the
petitioner, upon taking charge as Medical Superintendent, took
strong administrative action against internal staff members for
financial irregularities and absenteeism. Memos and official
communications were dispatched to ESIC Headquarters detailing
acts of insubordination by specific officials.
Page 18 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
12. It is apparent that the event of 16.11.2019, where the
complainant and others forcefully entered the petitioner’s office
chamber, indulged in verbal altercations, and committed physical
assault (admitted in the FIR itself as hurling a slipper) resulted in the
petitioner immediately invoking police assistance, leading to Non-
Cognizable Case No. 14 of 2019 against the trespassers. The
impugned FIR was lodged immediately thereafter as a classic
counterblast to escape legal consequences for their own lawless
conduct within a public facility.
13. In a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Courts look
closely at whether the essential legal ingredients of an offence are
actually met based on the FIR’s own narrative.
14. Section 504 IPC (Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace) requires three mandatory elements:
1. Intentional insult by the accused.
2. The insult must provoke the complainant.
3. Such provocation must be done with the
knowledge or intent that it will cause the
complainant to break the public peace or commit
another offence.
Reasons for rejecting / disbelieving the charge under
Section 504 IPC based on the given facts:
Page 19 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
Section 504 IPC (Intentional Insult with Intent to
Provoke Breach of Peace):
To attract Section 504 IPC, three ingredients must
coexist:
1. An intentional insult by the accused;
2. The insult must offer provocation to the
complainant; and
3. The accused must intend or know that such
provocation will cause the complainant to
break the public peace or commit an offense.
15. The narrative in the FIR establishes that the complainant, her
spouse, and co-workers entered the Medical Superintendent’s private
administrative chamber to confront him regarding actions taken by
their independent employer. The complainant admits in the FIR itself
that she struck the petitioner with a slipper (chappal). A person who
enters an official chamber and commits a physical assault cannot
invoke Section 504 IPC on the ground that heated verbal words
followed the confrontation.
16. As held by the Apex Court in Fiona Shrikhande v. State of
Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44, mere abusive words or general
allegations of insult do not satisfy Section 504 IPC unless
accompanied by the specific intent to incite a breach of public peace.
The petitioner was attempting to handle an escalating situation
within his administrative chamber. The accused must intend or know
Page 20 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
that his words will provoke the listener into breaking the peace. The
petitioner was an officer in his own official chamber trying to handle
an escalating crowd of 80 people and media (as noted in the non-
cognizable complaint). His reaction, even if heated, was aimed at
dispersing trespassers and restoring order in a government hospital
not at intentionally provoking a public riot or breach of peace.
17. The complainant only called the police after she was pushed
out and the office was locked from the inside to protect the official
from further physical assault. The claim of Section 504 IPC was
tacked onto the FIR as an afterthought to counteract the police call
made by the Medical Superintendent and to justify her physical
assault on a senior public official. Section 504 IPC cannot be
sustained where the complainant illegally entered an officer’s
chamber, initiated physical violence (striking with a slipper), and
failed to demonstrate that the officer deliberately insulted her with
the specific intention of provoking a breach of the public peace.
18. The Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy
(Supra), held that in exercise of wholesome power under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court is entitled to consider whether the
continuation of proceedings would subserve the ends of justice or
merely cause unjust harassment to a citizen:
“In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes toPage 21 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process of the
Court or that the ends of justice require that the
proceeding ought to be quashed.”
18.1. Thus, High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C., must examine whether a criminal proceeding is being
used as an instrument of harassment or vengeance.
19. The record reveals that prior to the registration of the
impugned FIR, the petitioner had initiated administrative inquiries
and issued memos against subordinate administrative staff for
financial irregularities and absenteeism. When the complainant and
others entered the petitioner’s chamber on 16.11.2019 and created a
disturbance, the petitioner immediately summoned the police,
resulting in Non-Cognizable (NC) Complaint No. 14 of 2019 against
the trespassers. The present FIR was lodged immediately thereafter
as a counterblast to shield against legal consequences for their
actions within a public office. The inherent jurisdiction is saved
precisely to ensure that court proceedings do not degenerate into
weapons of harassment. Where the material resting behind the
prosecution is inherently improbable and engineered out of
institutional friction, forcing a public officer through a protracted
criminal trial would run counter to the ends of justice.
20. Evaluating the entire facts and circumstances in totality, this
Page 22 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21577/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
Court arrives at the considered conclusion that the allegations made
in the FIR against the petitioner are inherently improbable and fail to
satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 354A, 354D, and 504 of
IPC; the criminal proceedings are demonstrably weaponized as a
retaliatory counterblast, manifestly driven by mala fides to settle
personal scores and obstruct an administrative head from
discharging his public duties; permitting the criminal proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 1445 of 2025 to continue against the petitioner
would amount to a clear abuse of the process of the Court and result
in a grave miscarriage of justice.
21. Consequently, the petition deserves to be allowed. The
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1445 of 2025, pending before the
learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Vapi, arising out of FIR being I-C.R. No. 107 of 2019
registered with Vapi GIDC Police Station, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and
set aside qua the petitioner.
22. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA
Page 23 of 23
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:25:58 IST 2026
