Sharad Kumar Gupta, J
1. Petitioner has preferred this CRMP under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the FIR No.3340050170160
under Crime No.160 at Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A r/w 34 Indian Penal Code
(IPC) qua the petitioner.
2. By this order I.A. No.1/2017 application for grant of interim relief/ stay and I.A. No. 3/2017 application for vacating stay are being disposed of.
3. In brief the respondents' case is that respondent No. 2 Tripati Das was working as Junior Officer HR and ES Department in Jindal Power Ltd. at
Tamnar since 19th August, 2014. Allegedly there was complaint against her that she was wondering outside of Girls Hostel late night, she was
wondering near gate No.3, she unnecessarily sat in the Finance Department during working hours. The behaviour of the petitioner was rude. It was
related to her personal life. She made a complaint on 10.05.2017 to the plant head. She also made a complaint by email regarding sexual harassment
and molestation against Shashikant Prasad on 12.05.2017. Petitioner who was head (HR JPL Tamnar) called her for inquiring about said complaint
and talked her arrogantly and he was not ready to listen her problem. Ultimately she was terminated from the service. She lodged an FIR against the
petitioner on 13.07.2017 to the effect that when she went to make the complaint against Shashikant Prasad to petitioner then he favoured Shashikant
Prasad, and made comment that she is looking beautiful. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded during the investigation.
4. In brief the petitioner's case is that on the complaint of respondent No.2 dated 10.05.2017 a committee was constituted. After inquiry the committee
found that the complaint is baseless and recommended strict disciplinary action against her. The complaint made by respondent No.2 by email
regarding sexual harassment and molestation by Shashikant Prasad was found untrue after preliminary inquiry. She was terminated on 13.06.2017.
The FIR is afterthought and filed to take revenge from him.
5. Looking to the complaint made by respondent No.2 on 10.05.2017, looking to the complaint made by respondent No.2 by email dated 12.05.2017,
looking to this fact that she was terminated from the service, looking to this fact that after the termination she lodged impugned FIR, this Court finds
that prima facie a case made out in favour of petitioner regarding I.A.No. 1. Consequently I.A. No. 1/2017 is allowed and further proceedings
pursuant to said FIR are stayed till further order.
6. In view of the above I.A. No.3/2017 is rejected.
7. Respondent No.2 is directed to file the reply till next date of hearing.
8. Fix this case on 4-12-2019 for final hearing.
