1. Heard on I.A. No.9051/2026, which is an application for taking documents on record.

2. For the reasons, mentioned therein, the application is taken up, considered and allowed and documents are taken on record.

3. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.356/2025 at Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(dh), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. Brief facts of the case are that as per prosecution story, respondent No.2/prosecutrix is working as Nursing Officer in the Nephrology Department of Super Speciality Hospital, Gwalior, where the present petitioner was posted as Head of Department. It is alleged that on 28.10.2025, when the prosecutrix went to the chamber of the petitioner for receiving and marking of an application, the petitioner spoke to her in abusive language, threatened her that if she wished to continue in service she would have to compromise and comply with the demands of the petitioner and co-accused Dr. Girija Shankar Gupta, otherwise she would be transferred to such a place where she would not be able to continue her service. It is further alleged that the petitioner abused her in the name of caste, held her hand with ulterior motive and asked her to maintain physical relations with the co-accused. Thereafter, FIR bearing Crime No.356/2025 came to be registered against the petitioner and co-accused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to departmental action taken against the prosecutrix on account of her indiscipline and misconduct in discharge of official duties. It is submitted that several complaints had been received from patients, attendants and hospital staff regarding the behaviour and functioning of respondent No.3. On 13.10.2025, the petitioner addressed a communication to the Superintendent, Super Speciality Hospital, recommending transfer of respondent No.3 from Nephrology Department on account of repeated complaints regarding negligence during night duties and misconduct with patients and staff. It is further submitted that on 18.10.2025, respondent No.3 sent a representation through WhatsApp to the petitioner denying allegations against her and simultaneously alleging that if anything happened to her, both accused persons would be responsible. According to the petitioner, the said communication clearly reflects preparation and intention to falsely implicate the petitioner. It is submitted that acting upon the recommendation dated 13.10.2025, respondent No.3 was transferred from Nephrology Department to Pediatric Surgery Ward by order dated 27.10.2025 issued by the Matron. The petitioner further submits that on 28.10.2025 at about 11:35 AM, respondent No.3 entered the OPD chamber of the petitioner and created disturbance by using abusive language and shouting in front of patients, thereby obstructing official work. A written complaint regarding the said incident was immediately submitted by the petitioner to the Superintendent and Dean. Acting thereupon, a show-cause notice dated 28.10.2025 was issued against respondent No.3.

6. It is submitted that the alleged incident took place in a Government Hospital fully covered by CCTV surveillance and CCTV footage does not support the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that several other persons, including ward staff and police officials escorting a prisoner for medical examination, were present near the chamber at the relevant time and none of them supported the allegations against the petitioner. It is further argued that the petitioner is a public servant and the allegations pertain to actions arising out of discharge of official duties; therefore, sanction under Section 218 BNSS was mandatory before initiation of criminal proceedings.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the FIR is manifestly attended with mala fide and has been lodged due to personal vengeance after departmental action was initiated against respondent No.3. Prior to registration of FIR, several complaints existed against respondent No.3 regarding negligence, indiscipline and misconduct. The complaint dated 13.10.2025 by the petitioner specifically recorded that respondent No.3 was absent from duty station during night shifts and patients had repeatedly complained against her conduct. By order dated 27.10.2025, respondent No.3 was transferred from Nephrology Department to Pediatric Surgery Ward. On 28.10.2025 itself, before registration of FIR, petitioner lodged complaint against respondent No.3 regarding disturbance created by her in OPD in presence of patients and staff. The show-cause notice dated 28.10.2025 was issued to respondent No.3 for misconduct with superior officers. On the date of incident, CCTV footage of the date does not support allegations of molestation or caste abuse. Even the independent persons present at the place of incident including police officials did not support prosecution allegations. Hence, the allegations in the FIR are vague, omnibus and inherently improbable. The respondent No.3 had earlier also made allegations against staff members and superior authorities and continuously alleged conspiracy and fabrication of records. The petitioner was merely discharging official duties and had no criminal intent and therefore, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this Court to the following complaints against the respondent No.3/prosecutrix regarding her conduct while discharging her duties and also regarding her intent in the office. The same are referred herein for ready reference:-

          (a) Complaint dated 13.10.2025 by the petitioner recommending transfer of respondent No.3 from Nephrology Department on account of negligence during night duty, absence from nursing station and repeated complaints by patients and attendants.

          (b) Office order dated 27.10.2025 issued by Matron transferring respondent No.3 to Pediatric Surgery Ward.

          (c) Complaint dated 28.10.2025 submitted by the petitioner alleging that respondent No.3 entered the OPD chamber and created disturbance by shouting in front of patients and obstructing official work.

          (d) Show-cause notice dated 28.10.2025 issued to respondent No.3 for misconduct with superior officers and creating disturbance at workplace.

          (e) Prior complaints dated 04.12.2024 and 27.12.2024 alleging late attendance, indiscipline, abusive behaviour with staff and threats to senior officials.

          (f) Complaints by nursing staff namely Swati Chauhan, Divya Chauhan and Anjali Das regarding misconduct and indiscipline of respondent No.3.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/prosecutrix submitted opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the prosecutrix is being harassed by the petitioner and the co-accused. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, further argued that the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offences and therefore investigation ought not to be interdicted at threshold. At the stage of quashing, meticulous appreciation of evidence is impermissible. As there are disputed questions of facts and disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. The FIR specifically alleges caste-based abuse, criminal intimidation and outraging of modesty and the defence of the accused cannot ordinarily be examined while exercising inherent jurisdiction. It is further argued that CCTV footage and defence documents are matters of trial. The respondent No.3 has consistently alleged harassment and misuse of authority by superior officers. In support of submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/prosecutrix relied upon the following judgments- Sheela Rani Vs. State of U.P. & Another, (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 256, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that powers of quashing should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases, Abani K. Debnath Vs. State of Tripura, (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 257 , wherein it was held that High Court should not conduct a mini trial while exercising inherent powers, Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora, (2013) 10 SCC 581, wherein the Supreme Court observed that even if chances of conviction are remote, criminal proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed if allegations disclose commission of offence, Jittu Jentilal Kotecha Vs. State of Gujarat, (2022) 13 SCC 652, wherein it was reiterated that inherent powers are to be exercised with great caution, Brajendra Sharma Vs. State of M.P., M.Cr.C. No.53682/2024 , wherein this Court declined interference where disputed facts required trial, Preet Singh & Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P. (Crl.) No.1762/2022, Delhi High Court, wherein it was held that defence material ordinarily cannot be conclusively examined at quashing stage.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant/prosecutrix also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant complaints which were made by the prosecutrix regarding the alleged harassment by her superiors and other similarly placed employees to show that the prosecutrix was targeted by the petitioner and other staff members and she was facing caste-based discrimination at the place of of duty. Learned counsel also referred the complaint made by the prosecutrix at C.M. Helpline alleging the harassment by the petitioner. On all these grounds, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3/prosecutrix, prayed for dismissal of this petition.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent/State also opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

13. The scope of interference under Section 528 BNSS is well settled. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings can be quashed where allegations do not constitute any offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court.

14. In State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustratively enumerated categories where criminal proceedings can be quashed, including cases where allegations are inherently improbable or manifestly attended with mala fide intention.

15. In Sundar Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 244 , it was held that inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law.

16. In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, the Apex Court observed that where chances of conviction are bleak and continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose, proceedings deserve to be quashed.

17. This Court has carefully examined the allegations in the FIR, the surrounding circumstances and the documents placed on record.

18. It is undisputed that prior to registration of FIR, departmental communications and complaints existed against respondent No.3 regarding her conduct and functioning in the department. The complaint dated 13.10.2025 recommending her transfer and subsequent transfer order dated 27.10.2025 are prior in point of time to the FIR. Further, material available on record reveals that on the date of alleged incident itself, the petitioner had submitted written complaint regarding misconduct of respondent No.3 in OPD and thereafter show-cause notice was issued against her. It also appears from the record that several persons including hospital staff and police officials were present near the chamber at the relevant time. However, none of them have supported the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

19. This Court has also taken note of the CCTV material placed on record by the petitioner. Prima facie, the same does not support occurrence of any such incident as alleged by respondent No.3. Another important aspect is that even accepting the allegations in entirety, the principal allegations regarding demand of physical relations are directed mainly against co-accused Dr. Girija Shankar Gupta and allegations against present petitioner are omnibus and general in nature. This Court also finds substance in the contention that the petitioner had been acting in relation to administrative and disciplinary matters concerning respondent No.3 in discharge of official functions.

20. The material placed on record reflects existence of prior departmental discord between the parties arising out of official conduct and disciplinary action. Though ordinarily disputed facts are not examined at the stage of quashing, yet where the attending circumstances clearly indicate mala fide institution of proceedings and continuation thereof would amount to abuse of process, this Court is not powerless to interfere.

21. In the present case, the following circumstances cumulatively persuade this Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction:

          (i) Presence of independent persons including police officials at the place of occurrence who did not support prosecution allegations;

          (ii) CCTV footage not supporting the allegations;

          (iii) Existence of prior departmental complaints against respondent No.3;

          (iv) Transfer order issued against respondent No.3 prior to FIR;

          (v) Complaint made by petitioner against respondent No.2 on the same day prior to registration of FIR;

          (vi) Allegations against present petitioner being omnibus in nature;

          (vii) Strong probability of FIR being outcome of personal vengeance arising out of departmental action.

22. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.

23. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, arguments advanced by the parties and looking to the relevant judgements as referred above, the present petition is hereby allowed and FIR registered at Crime No.356/2025 at Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75, 351(3) of BNSS and Sections 3(1)(dh), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, so far as they relate to the present petitioner, stand quashed.

24. It is made clear that the instant order is being passed in respect of the present petitioner- Dr. Shivam Yadav, and this order shall NOT affect any proceedings/investigation in respect of the co-accused Dr. Girija Shankar Gupta.

25. No order as to costs.