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 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.

          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 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:

          (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.

          (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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

          (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 or 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 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."

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.

          * 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.

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:

           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 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 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."

          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 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.