MANINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No. 187 dtd. 31/8/2020 registered under Ss. 323, 354, 354-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C.') at Police Station DLF Phase-1, District Gurugram along with all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) The above said FIR was registered on written complaint submitted by respondent No.2-Sonia Singh to the SHO, Police Station DLF Phase-1, Gurugram. In the written complaint respondent No.2- Sonia Singh alleged that she is working in Indigo Company and her Senior Manager is Maninder Singh (the petitioner). The petitioner has bad intention towards her for the last many days. He, on the pretext of having friendship with her, made her to sit in his car and forcibly tried to do bad act with her in Delhi Terminal-1 Parking in the month of March before the lockdown. When she objected to the same he forcibly kissed her and continued repeatedly kissing her despite her objection.

(3.) The petitioner has filed the present petition pleading that respondent No.2, appointed as contractual employee for one year in July, 2019, was not having good health and was in depression due to which she fell unconscious during office hours. The petitioner being the Manager took her counselling sessions lasting about nine months during which respondent No.2 shared various personal things to the petitioner. Despite having knowledge that the petitioner has a family and kids respondent No.2 started claiming that she is feeling attached with the petitioner as he is understanding her. Due to Covid-19 pandemic the office was closed for sixty days but respondent No.2 remained in contact with the petitioner through calls and WhatsApp chats as and when she needed a cold shoulder regarding her personal issues. After resumption of work, whenever the petitioner and respondent No.2 had the same duty roster the petitioner used to drop respondent No.2 on her request to the nearest auto stand due to lower availability of public transport. On 18/6/2020, respondent No.2 got tense about the termination of contract of her colleague and called up the petitioner for help for renewal of her contract and contract of her colleague but the petitioner did not want to get himself involved and forwarded the contract details of concerned department EVA to respondent No.2 to whom she could redress her grievance. This particular guidance made respondent No.2 more inclined towards the petitioner and her liking towards him increased drastically. Respondent No.2 even used to call the petitioner especially in her close family functions and also made her parents to especially meet the petitioner. In July, 2020 after an year of working together, when the petitioner and respondent No.2 were comfortable with each other, respondent No.2 in another session of counselling revealed a deep secret about her past and another cause of depression that she had issues with the Manager of the previous company against whom she made similar allegations who apologized and paid compensation as demanded by respondent No.2 to close the issue. Thereafter, on better wisdom prevailing, the petitioner started distancing himself from respondent No.2. On 13/8/2020, respondent No.2 pressurized the petitioner to meet her and accompany her to home and come back again to office as she wanted to discuss something important which could not be spoken on phone. She continuously started messaging the petitioner due to which the petitioner had to block her number on WhatsApp. Respondent No.2 waited for the petitioner to get free, followed him through the office premises to the parking lot and tried to sit in his car and pressurized the petitioner to speak to her and not to break the relationship. There was heated argument between the petitioner and respondent No.2 which was witnessed by the guards in the parking who were sent back by respondent No.2 by saying that they were just discussing some issues between them. The petitioner made her understand that these things should not be discussed at office place and further promised to speak about it in coming days. The petitioner had conveyed to respondent No.2 on earlier occasions also that the bond they are sharing could not continue for long as it is hampering his family and professional life and suggested to respondent No.2 to focus on her career, family and getting married soon on which respondent No.2 got annoyed. The petitioner brought everything in the notice of Mr. Sharad, HR Manager and Ms. Priyanka Mendiratta, Associate Director. As suggested by Mr. Sharad, HR Manager, the petitioner sent an email to him on 14/8/2020 informing him about the said incident with request to change the department of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint dtd. 14/8/2020 with the police as a counter blast to the above said complaint made by the petitioner through email to the employer authorities. Respondent No.2 settled the matter with the petitioner and convinced him to withdraw his complaint and to show her bona fide she also sent a letter to the police authorities that she does not want any action on her complaint. On requests and apologies made by respondent No.2 the petitioner took back his complaint on 17/8/2020. Respondent No.2 was herself pressurizing the petitioner to meet her by sending messages and herself wanted to be with the petitioner, waited for him after office and followed him to the parking. After withdrawal of his complaint by the petitioner, respondent No.2 got the present FIR registered against the petitioner on 31/8/2020 after 17 days of the incident on concocted allegations to take revenge for rejection of one sided love affair and failure to fulfil unjustified demand of respondent No.2. The photographs of the self-inflicted injuries were given by respondent No.2 to the police to falsely implicate the petitioner. The petitioner had never been involved in any activity or offences involving moral turpitude during his career span of 20 years. The petitioner has accordingly prayed for quashing of the above-said FIR along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.