Oral Judgment:

1. Heard.

2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. This application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeks quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 597/2020 dated 24.11.2020 registered with Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), consequent Charge-sheet No. 132/2026 dated 20.06.2026 and Regular Criminal Case No. 3170/2026 pending before the learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under :

The complainant/non-applicant no.2 was working as a Computer Assistant in the office of the applicant situated on the first floor of his house. It is alleged that on 23.11.2020 at about 4.30 p.m. while the complainant was attending to her work in the office, the applicant approached her and pinched her cheeks. When she resisted, the applicant allegedly released her and thereafter hugged her from behind and touched her back. It is further alleged that when the complainant attempted to free herself, the applicant dragged her into his cabin, touched various parts of her body and thereby outraged her modesty. The complainant managed to extricate herself from the applicant and proceeded to the police station, whereupon, on the basis of her complaint, the aforesaid offence came to be registered against the applicant.

5. Heard Mr. Kanak Y. Mandape, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. M. J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for non-applicant no.1/State. Nobody appears for the complainant/non-applicant no.2.

6. Mr. Mandape, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant is a LIC Agent and on 23.11.2020, the applicant was at the LIC Office. In support of his submission, the applicant has placed on record a copy of presentee/ attendance register (Annex.4) for the month of November, 2020. It is contended that the complainant was demanding increment in the salary to which the applicant denied and therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case. According to him, there is no other material against the applicant except the statement of the complainant. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for allowing the application.

7. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State objected the application on the ground that the complainant in her statement has specifically mentioned the alleged acts of the applicant amounting to outraging her modesty. He contended that the documents relied upon by the applicant are not of sterling quality. According to him, the applicant was working as a LIC agent and not as an employee of the LIC office. As such there was no restriction on him for attending and leaving the LIC office at specific time. The applicant might have gone to the LIC office at the time mentioned in the documents relied upon by him, but there is nothing on record which suggests that at the relevant time of the incident, he was present in the LIC office or he was not present in his office/house. It can be a defence of the applicant, which he can very well raise during the course of trial. Learned APP submitted that considering the disputed facts, the matter warrants trial. According to him, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant and the same needs to be rejected.

8. The charge-sheet indicates that the complainant was working in the office of the applicant which is situated at the first floor of his house. In the FIR as well as her statement, the complainant has specifically stated that on 23.11.2020 at 4:30 pm, the applicant came near the complainant and pinched her cheeks. When the complainant resisted, the applicant left her cheeks and hugged her from behind. When the complainant tried to rescue herself, the applicant caught her hand, dragged her into his cabin and touched various parts of her body inappropriately. It is also a matter of record that on the very same day of the incident, the FIR came to be lodged. Thus, there is prima facie material against the applicant, which constitutes an offence under Section 354 of the IPC.

9. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not present in his office at the relevant time is concerned, it can be raised as a defence by the applicant during course of trial. Moreover, the document (Annex.4) produced by the applicant showing his attendance at the LIC office at 10:41 am, is not of a sterling quality. It is not palpable from this document that it was issued by the LIC office. In the document relied upon by the applicant, he is shown present at 10:41 am on 23.11.2020. However, the alleged incident had occurred at 4:30 pm. That apart, it is also not clear whether the applicant was a LIC agent or a full-time employee employed by the LIC, and whether there were any restriction on the applicant’s working hours or on the time of attending and leaving the LIC office. It is also not the case of the applicant that he was out of the city on the date of the incident.

10. The further submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the complainant demanded increment in the salary, which the applicant did not grant and that, as a result she lodged a false report against the applicant. However, there is nothing in the entire charge-sheet prima facie to support this contention of the applicant. Whether the applicant has been falsely implicated cannot be decided at this stage as the same is a disputed question that can be gone into during the course of the trial.

11. Therefore, no case is made out to exercise the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. The application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the Criminal Application is rejected.

12. It is made clear that the observations made in this judgment are prima facie in nature and only for deciding this application. The trial Court shall not be influenced by the same while conducting the trial and deciding the same.