VIKRAM RAGHUNATH GULAVANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2020-10-125
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on October 28,2020

Vikram Raghunath Gulavani Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard finally with the consent of parties. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for quashing of the FIR bearing C.R. No. 935 of 2019 registered with Hinjewadi Police Station, Pune for offences punishable under Section 354A (1) (iv) of the Indian Penal Code .
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are:- The Respondent No. 2 was working as Customer Advisor at Concorde Motors India Pvt. Ltd. The accused-Applicant was working as the Unit Head of Concorde Motors India Pvt. Ltd. The Respondent No. 2 was on leave from 01.07.2019 to 30.07.2019 for her marriage. When she resumed work on 01.08.2019 and attended the meeting with her colleagues, it is alleged that the applicant during the course of discussion asked the Respondent No. 2 that why she needed to be on leave for so many days for her honeymoon and abruptly left the meeting. It is also alleged that on the same day, the applicant called the Respondent No. 2 to his cabin when one Deepak Raut was also present. The Applicant was allegedly looking at Respondent No. 2 with bad intentions and started talking about her marriage. He mentioned about the glow, she had on her face post marriage. The Respondent No. 2 therefore felt embarrassed due to the sexualy coloured remarks made by the Applicant.
(3.) During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that, the applicant and Respondent No. 2 have amicably settled the dispute. We have interacted with Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 says that, with the intervention of other office colleagues and common acquaintances, the Applicant as well as Respondent No. 2 decided to resolve the dispute. The applicant tendered an unconditional apology to the Respondent No. 2 and stated that he had no such intention of making sexually coloured remarks as was the impression carried by Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 says that she too realised after speaking with the Applicant that this was a result of some misunderstanding and wrong impression that she had carried in her mind. Having realised that the FIR is on account of some misunderstanding which the Respondent No. 2 carried in her mind, the Respondent No. 2 decided to consent for quashing the FIR. At the cost of repetition we may say that we have interacted with the Respondent No. 2 in some detail and she has stated that there is no force or coercion on her and the consent for quashing the FIR is her voluntary act. The Respondent No. 2 is identified by her Advocate.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.