Supreme Court of India
Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 2 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol, C.T. Ravikumar
2025 INSC 19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO………………OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2021)
NARESH ANEJA @ NARESH KUMAR ANEJA ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
2. The instant appeal questions the correctness of judgment in order dated 8th
January, 2021, passed in Application u/s 482 No. 18712 of 2020 by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby the appellant request to quash the
chargesheet and proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 1074 of 2019 u/s 354,
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 was turned down.
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. The appellant and respondent no. 22 are Directors in a joint concern by the
Signature Not Verified
name of ‘M/s LAJ-IDS Exports Pvt. Ltd.’ with the shareholding divided 3:1.
Digitally signed by
SNEHA DAS
Date: 2025.01.02
17:48:32 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’
2
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’
1 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
Record reveals certain allegations and counter allegations in regard to
mishandling of the company’s finances, however, the same are not within the
scope of the present adjudication.
3.1 In July 2019, the appellant vide a communication Annexed as P-2
sought to end this partnership. However, this fact also stands disputed.
3.2 On 20th July, 2019, respondent no. 2 filed a complaint before the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Janpad – Gautambuddh Nagar, making
allegations against RK Aneja (brother of the appellant and A-1 in the
chargesheet) of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace as also alleged
threat of murder. The complaint reads as under:
“To,
The Senior Superintendent of Police,
Janpad – Gautambuddh Nagar (U.P.)Sir,
The humble request is that Applicant Puja D/o Late A.K. Tankha is R/o
H.N.2106 Tower Lotus bulword Sector 100 Noida P.S. 39, Gautambuddh
Nagar and Applicant is working ass Director in I.D.S. Export Pvt. Ltd. House
No.208, Sector 63, Noida Company and R.K. Aneja R/o 7 Hauz Khas New
Delhi are working as Director in the aforesaid company and Applicant has
been working in the aforesaid company from February 2018. R.K. Aneja has
been harassing and troubling the Applicant since October November 2018 and
from few months R.K. Aneja has been holding hands on small works and when
the Applicant works on computer while sitting then he touches the Applicant
which cannot be explained by Applicant. Applicant informed this to Naresh
then he said that he will make R.K. Aneja understand. Holding the hand of
Applicant and touching her body in above office by the R.K. Aneja has been
seen by Chaman Lal S/o Kishan Lal R/o E-1813 G.N.22, Sangam Vihar, New
Delhi and Savender Singh R/o I.P. Extension New Delhi. R.K. Aneja has tried
to rape Applicant and upon screaming he threatened to kill her, then the
Applicant pushed R.K. Aneja and escaped from there and left the company.
Applicant went to police station and police officer did not lodge his complaint
then the Applicant went and met Senior Superintendent of Police Gautambudh
Nagar in Public Audience and gave her complaint on which no steps have been
taken. Applicant is again giving this complaint to Senior Superintendent of
Police.
2 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
Therefore, it is requested t you sir, that direction be given to the Station
House Officer Phase-3 to lodge the first information report against the
above persons and take legal actions.
Applicant
Sd/-”3.3 A preliminary enquiry report was submitted to the competent
authority on 6th August, 2019. However, on 14th August, 2019, the
complainant filed an application bearing no. 457/2019 u/s 156(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate4,
Gautambuddh Nagar alleging non-lodging of complaint as also no
investigation having taken place on the representation given to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Gautambuddh Nagar. Relevant extract thereof is
as under:
“…Conclusion:-
During the investigation, we spoke to both the parties and gone through
all the facts and it was found that R.K. Aneja has firm in the name of
“Laj Exports Limited which works in the field of Garments. The above
firm was registered in the year 2005. Applicant Pooja Tankha has firm
in the name of “IDS Fashions Pvt. Ltd. In the above firm Applicant and
her mother are designated Director. In the year 2018 Applicant met
with Accused R.K. Aneja through common friend Ajay Dalvi.
Applicant informed that she has various buyer from foreign in case
Accused make joint company then business can be increased. After that
a joint business company was registered by the Applicant and Accused
in the name of Laj IDS Exports Private Limited” in the above firm R.K.
Aneja and Naresh Aneja had 75% share and Applicant had 25% share.
The above firm used to do designing and export of Bridal wear and
Evening Wear. Applicant had various customer in foreign therefore he
was given operational management work whereas the account finance
and other policy decision were with R.K. Aneja and Naresh Aneja.
Because of various difference between the Applicant and Accused
during the business of company, the dispute arose in the company.
Accused states that Applicant used to book the orders received from
foreign in her own private company “IDS Fashions Private Limited and3
‘CrPC’ for short
4
Abbreviated as ‘CJM’
3 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
not in the name of Laj IDS Exports Private Limited, but the resources
were used of Laj IDS Exports Private Limited. On the other hand the
Applicant states that the foreign customers know her personal company
IDS Fashions Private Limited and not Laj IDS Exports Private Limited
therefore all orders are taken in the name of IDS Fashions Private
Limited and those are fulfilled by the company Laj IDS Exports Private
Limited, the information was well within the knowledge of the other
Director of Laj Exports Private Limited. Accused has made allegation
on the applicant that she has booked the order from foreign without any
acceptance/approval and did not give any information to the Accused
and has got the work executed from “Laj Exports Private Limited
because of which huge financial loss has occurred. On the other hand
Applicant states that even after being Director she was not able to see
the accounts of “Laj IDS Exports Private Limited and she has made
allegation on the other Directors that they have done misappropriation
of account and theft of tax.
Hence it is clear that there is dispute going on between applicant and
Accused with regard to management and finances of “Laj IDS Exports
Private Limited.
Applicant had made allegation in her complaint that Accused Director
R.K. Aneja used to harass her and used to threat him to kill her. During
the enquiry with Applicant it was informed that Accused R.K. Aneja
used to touch her inappropriately and also used to stand behind with bad
intention. Although these allegations were opposed by the Accused. It
is stated that in other firms there are 1600 girls are working but no one
has made allegation of harassment till date. During the investigation
other worker of Laj IDS Exports Private Limited Smt. Babli W/o Shri
Ashok Singh Kumar, Shri Chamanlal S/o Shri Kishan Lal …illegible
Yadav S/o Shri Harishchandra Yadav, Avdhesh Kumar, Pawan Kumar,
Sarwal Khan etc. were enquired and statement were taken who has
stated in their statement that they had no information of such incident
done with the Applicant by the R.K. Aneja. During the investigation
Applicant has also not provided any evidence like CCTV footage etc.
apart from her verbal statement from which the same can be clarified.
From the complete information it is clear that there is a dispute between
Applicant and Accused regarding management and finance of Laj IDS
Exports Private Limited but the allegation of harassment and touching
inappropriately by the Accused cannot be certainly stated.
… … …
Sd/-
(Piyush Singh)
District Magistrate-Second
Janpad-Gautambudhnagar”
(emphasis supplied)
4 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
3.4 The CJM, on 20th August, 2019, in pursuance of this application,
directed registration of complaint and investigation thereof. On 4th
September, 2019, First Information Report5 No. 1074 of 2019 came to be
registered u/s 354 & 506 of IPC where under the present appellant is A-2.
Certain portions are extracted below: –
“…Copy complaint in Hindi in typed form before Hon’ble Chief
Judicial Magistrate Sir, Gautambuddh Nagar, Complaint No. 457 of
2019 Pooja D/o Late A.K. Tankha, R/o H.N.2106 Tower Lotus
Vulworld Sector 100 Noida P.S. 39, Gautambuddh Nagar… Applicant
Versus 1. R.K. Aneja Director 2. Naresh Aneja Director presently
working in Company and address Laj IDS Export Pvt. Ltd House
No.208, Sector 63, Noida, District Gautambuddh Nagar,.. Respondent.
Ps Phase 3, Complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, sir the humble
request is that Applicant Pooja D/o Late A.K. Tankha R/o H.N. 2016
Tower Lotus Sector 100, Noida PS 39 Gautambuddhnagar is working
as Director in the company and R.K. Anuja and Naresh R/o 7 Hauz
Khas New Delhi are also the director in the above company. Applicant
has been working in the aforesaid company from February 2018. R.K.
Aneja has been harassing the troubling the Applicant since October
November 2018 and from few months R.K. Aneja has been holding
hands on small works and when the Applicant works on computer while
sitting then he touches the Applicant which cannot be explained by
Applicant. Applicant informed this to Naresh then he said that he will
make R.K. Aneja understand. Holding the hand of Applicant and
touching her body in above office by the R.K. Aneja is seen by Chaman
Lal S/o Kishan Lal R/o E- 1813 G.N. 22 Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and
Savender Singh R/o I.P. Extension New Delhi. R.K. Aneja has tried has
tried to rape Applicant and upon screaming he threatened to kill her,
then the Applicant pushed R.K. Aneja and escaped from there and left
the company. Applicant went to police station and police officer did not
lodge his complaint then the Applicant went and met Senior
Superintendent of Police Gautambudh Nagar in Public Audience and
gave her complaint on which no steps have been taken. Applicant is
again giving this complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police but till
date no investigation has taken place. Constrained with the above the
applicant is filing the present complaint here. Therefore, it is requested
to you sir, that direction be given to the Station House Officer Phase-3
to lodge the first information report against the above persons and take
legal actions. Date 14.08.20219 Applicant SD English…illegible”(emphasis supplied)
5
For short ‘FIR’
5 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
3.5 It is also to be noted that, shortly after the present complainant filedher complaint, the appellant and his brother filed a complaint against the
complainant alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, and siphoning of
funds of the partnership concern.
3.6 The appellant as also A-1 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court6
seeking protection from arrest as also the quashing of the subject FIR. Such
a prayer to quash was refused but protection from arrest was granted till
submission of the final report.
3.7 Chargesheet No. 8264 of 2020 was filed on 10th January, 2020, under
the sections above named stating that the statement of the complainant,
statements of the appellant and witnesses and the statement of appellant u/s
164 CrPC, the offences were found to be made out. Relevant extract thereof
is as follows: –
“sir the above case was registered on the complaint of the above
Complainant Pooja Tankha after investigation by SI Pramod Kumar
Tyagi PS Phase 3. The above investigation was transferred from PS 3
to PS Site 5. I SI have gone through the above case and received C.D.
and investigated. In the above case there is an anticipatory order from
the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad for the arrest of above accused
Rajinder Kumar Aneja S/o Santlal Aneja R/o H-7, Hauz Khas, PS Hauz
Khas New Delhi because of which the Accused cannot be arrested.
Upon investigation statement of complainant and witness were taken
and inspected the incident spot and statement under Section 164 Cr.PC
was taken from Accused Rajender Kumar Aneja S/o Santlal Aneja R/o
H-7, Hauz Khas PS Hauz Khas New Delhi 2. Naresh Kumar Aneja S/o
Sant Lal Aneja R/o H-7, Hauz Khas PS Hauz Khas New Delhi, which
is found under Section 354/506 IPC. Therefore, the Charge Sheet is
present through Challan before Hon’ble Court. Kindly give appropriate
punishment.”6
Criminal Writ Petition 22246 of 2019; disposed of vide order dated 1 st October 2019
6 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
Cognizance thereon was taken on 24th June, 2020.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT
4. The appellant filed a petition u/s 482 CrPC seeking a quashing of the
chargesheet dated 10th January, 2020; cognizance order dated 24th June, 2020 as
also stay on further proceedings against the appellant arising out of Case Crime
No. 1074 of 2019 i.e. Trial Case No. 8264 of 2020 pending before the Civil Judge,
Junior Division, FTC-2, Gautambuddh Nagar.
5. By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge refused the prayer,
observing that only malicious or malafide institution of proceedings warrants
interference by way of the inherent powers of the High Court. It was further
observed that there were disputed questions of facts and that the High Court could
not enter into, nor could it undertake a “microscopic examination of facts and
evidence to thwart the prosecution case”. Before it, a prayer for accepting the
plea of bail was made seeking directions to the concerned court in that regard.
6. The Trial Court was directed to consider the prayer for bail on its own
merits, and the appellant was directed to appear before the concerned Court
within 45 days, and for such a time period, he was protected from any coercive
steps.
SUBMISSIONS
7. We have heard Mr. R Basanth and Ms. Shobha Gupta, Learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant and complainant, respectively.
7 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
7.1 The case of the appellant, as can be understood from the record as
also the submissions made, is as follows:
(a) Prior to the application u/s 156(3) CrPC, an earlier complaint dated
14th August, 2019, was registered making the same allegations, which
fact has been hidden from the Learned Magistrate. The preliminary
investigating report submitted in respect thereto records that no offence
under Sections 354 & 506 IPC are made out and in fact, the dispute arises
from company affairs and management. In other words, the appellant
has been falsely implicated in this case.
(b) Contents of the FIR or the chargesheet do not disclose commission
of any offence by the appellant nor has the complainant alleged any act
on his part in the application u/s 156(3) CrPC. There is only one-line in
the chargesheet stating that the allegations against the appellant were
proved.
(c) The FIR is motivated since the complainant possessed intentions to
commit fraud. Upon her intentions and actions being unearthed, several
cases have been filed against them.
7.2 The Complainant’s case is as under:
(a) There is an attempt to paint the dispute as one originating from the
company’s affairs, however, the appellant and his brother took undue
advantage of the complainant and blackmailed her.
(b) The FIR and statements u/s 161 and 164 CrPC are clear that A-1 made
inappropriate advances towards her and when she wished to file a
complaint, the appellant degraded her by way of abusive language and
physical and mental harassment.
8 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
(c) The appellant has concealed relevant facts before this court, such as
his criminal history, including complaints allegedly filed by persons other
than the complainant herein.
(d) With reference to Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S Gill7, Rajesh Bajaj v.
State of NCT of Delhi8 and Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. v.
Biological E Ltd . & Ors,9it is submitted that prima facie offence is made
out against the appellant, and therefore, the same should not be quashed.
CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT
8. In the above conspectus, the sole question to be considered by this court is
whether the charges levied against the appellant are ex-facie made out from the
record, thereby justifying the High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings by
invoking its inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC.
9. For the purposes of immediate recall, it may be stated here that the
chargesheet finds the offences u/s 354 & 506 IPC to be established, warranting
trial against the appellant as well as A-1.
10. It is well settled that when considering an application u/s 482 CrPC, the
court cannot conduct a mini-trial but instead is to be satisfied that prima facie the
offences as alleged are made out. To put it differently, it is to be seen, without
undertaking a minute examination of the record, that there is some substance in
the allegations made which could meet the threshold of statutory language.
7
(1995) 6 SCC 194
8
(1999) 3 SCC 259
9
(2002) 1 SCC 234
9 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
11. Let us now consider the sections under which the offences have been
alleged.
“354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her
modesty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman,
intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby
outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which
may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any
injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or
reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to
cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which
he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person
is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such
threats, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person
in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the
offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both;
if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—and if the threat be to
cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property
by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment
for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
12. A bear perusal of Section 354, IPC reveals that for it to apply, the offence
must be committed against a woman; criminal force must be applied against her;
and such application of force must be with the intent to outrage her modesty. [See:
Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra10]
10
(2004) 4 SCC 371
10 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
12.1 Criminal force is defined in Section 350 IPC11, however, what
exactly does modesty means, which is an essential aspect for this Section to
apply, has not been defined so as to constitute an offence u/s 354 IPC. Any
discussion on this Section is incomplete without reference to Rupan Deol
Bajaj (supra) wherein the Learned Judges observed:
“14. Since the word ‘modesty’ has not been defined in the Penal Code,
1860 we may profitably look into its dictionary meaning. According
to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Edn.) modesty is the quality
of being modest and in relation to woman means “womanly propriety
of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct”. The
word ‘modest’ in relation to woman is defined in the above dictionary
as “decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd;
shamefast”. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the
English Language defines modesty as “freedom from coarseness,
indelicacy or indecency; a regard for propriety in dress, speech or
conduct”. In the Oxford English Dictionary (1933 Edn.) the meaning of
the word ‘modesty’ is given as “womanly propriety of behaviour;
scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman);
reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to
impure or coarse suggestions”.
15. … From the above dictionary meaning of ‘modesty’ and the
interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh
case [AIR 1967 SC 63 : 1967 Cri LJ 1 : 1966 Supp SCR 286] it appears
to us that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been
outraged is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one
which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman …”12.2 While we hold the above observations as also the discussion made
in Major Singh (supra) in the highest esteem and regard, it must not escape
us that the observations were made in the societal context and milieu of that
time and its import today should be interpreted in our present context.
11
350. Criminal force.—Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order
to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by
the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use
criminal force to that other.
11 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
Reference in this regard may be made to observations by Bhat, J in Attorney
General v. Satish12,
“66. … These require an element of application of physical force, to
women. The expression “modesty” was another limitation as older
decisions show that such a state was associated
with decorousness [Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill,
(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] of women. This added a
dimension of patriarchy and class. [ Section 354 (or any other provision
of IPC) does not offer a statutory definition of the term “modesty”, and
over time, was interpreted broadly, contemporaneously with the
developing and acknowledged role of women in society, to overcome
its inherently colonial and patriarchal origins. … One cannot be
unmindful of the circumstances in which these provisions were enacted
by a colonial power, at a time, when women’s agency itself was
unacknowledged, or had limited recognition. Further, women in India
were traditionally—during the time of enactment of IPC, in the mid-
Nineteenth Century—subordinated to the care of their fathers, or their
husbands, or other male relatives. They had no share in immovable
property; notions of gender equality were unheard of, or not permitted.
Women had no right to vote. Quite naturally, the dignity of women—
or indeed their autonomy, was not provided for.
67. The advent of the Constitution of India revolutionised—at least in
law, all that. Regardless of gender, race, caste, religion or region, or all
of the acknowledged sectarian and discrimination enabling barriers,
everyone enjoyed equality of law, and equal protection of law (Article
14). Further, the provision in Article 15(1) proscribed discrimination by
the State (in all its forms) on various grounds, including gender. Article
15(3) enabled the State to enact special provisions for women and
children.”
12.3 Turning to the facts of the instant case, keeping in view the contents
of the FIR, the statement in the final report of the investigating officer, and
the statement u/s 164 CrPC of the complainant, we are of the view that even
prima facie the ingredients as referred to supra, are not met. The record is
silent with respect to the use of any force, apart from bald assertions of
mental and physical discomfort caused to the complainant by the appellant.
12
(2022) 5 SCC 545
12 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
12.4 It is well settled that for mens rea to be established, something better
than vague statements must be produced before the court. As evidenced by
the annexures referred to above, i.e. the FIR, the preliminary investigation
report as also the concluding portion of the chargesheet, no direct allegation
nor any evidence in support thereof can be found attributing intent to the
appellant. It cannot be said, then, that a case u/s 354 IPC is made out against
the appellant.
13. Let us now examine the next charge for which the appellant stands accused.
For an offence u/s 503 to be established, it must be shown that:- (1) Threatening
a person with any injury; (i) to his person, reputation or property; or (ii) to the
person, or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested. (2) Such threat
must be intentional; (i) to cause alarm to that person; or (ii) to cause that person
to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat; or (iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which
that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such
threat. Punishment for this offence is prescribed u/s 506 IPC, which is two years
or with a fine or both, as applicable to this case.
13.1 Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka13 as affirmed by a bench of three
judges in Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab14, records the principle of
application of Section 506, IPC in the following terms: –
13
(2015) 7 SCC 423
14
(2020) 8 SCC 811
13 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
“11.…A reading of the definition of “criminal intimidation” would
indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of
causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person
threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested
and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person
threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to
do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
13. …It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in
deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of
“criminal intimidation”. The threat must be with intention to cause
alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any
work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause
alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section.
But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to
cause alarm to the complainant….”
13.2 A recent judgment of this court, Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P15 held
as under: –
“38. An offence of criminal intimidation arises when the accused
intendeds to cause alarm to the victim, though it does not matter
whether the victim is alarmed or not. The intention of the accused to
cause alarm must be established by bringing evidence on record. The
word ‘intimidate’ means to make timid or fearful, especially : to compel
or deter by or as if by threats. The threat communicated or uttered by
the person named in the chargesheet as an accused, should be uttered
and communicated by the said person to threaten the victim for the
purpose of influencing her mind. The word ‘threat’ refers to the intent
to inflict punishment, loss or pain on the other. Injury involves doing
an illegal act.”
This judgment also, with reference to Manik Taneja (supra), underscoredthe importance of material and evidence being placed on record to
demonstrate intention. A mere statement without intention would not attract
the offence.
13.3 What flows from the judgments referred is that for an offence of
criminal intimidation to be prima facie established, the intention should be
15
2024 SCC OnLine SC 726
14 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
clearly visible, and the same is to be established by evidence on record.
Granted that at this stage, evidence on record is not the standard to be applied
since the trial is underway, but at least the results of the investigation and the
material gathered thereunder, which is on record, should disclose somewhat
of an offence. The FIR, interim investigation report and the chargesheet,
reproduced above, do not disclose any offence having been committed by
the appellant herein.
14. During oral submissions, it was urged that the statements u/s 161 and 164
CrPC, when read collectively, do indeed disclose an offence having been
committed by the appellant. This was in response to the submission on behalf of
the appellant that, on the face of it no offence is made out against him. We find it
difficult to accept the submission on behalf of the complainant. The position of
law in regard to the admissibility of these statements is settled. We may refer to
State of Maharashtra v. Maroti16 (authored by one of us, Hon. C.T Ravikumar
J.) wherein the Court held-
“23. In the decision in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab [Rajeev
Kourav v. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 51] , a
two-Judge Bench of this Court dealt with question as to the matters that
could be considered by the High Court in quashment proceedings under
Section 482CrPC. It was held therein that statements of witnesses
recorded under Section 161CrPC being wholly inadmissible in
evidence could not be taken into consideration by the Court while
adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482CrPC. In that case, this
Court took note of the fact that the High Court was aware that one of
the witnesses mentioned that the deceased victim had informed him
about the harassment by the accused, which she was not able to bear
and hence wanted to commit suicide. Finding that the conclusion of the
High Court to quash the criminal proceedings in that case was on the
basis of its assessment of the statements recorded under Section
16
(2023) 4 SCC 298
15 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
161CrPC, it was held that statements thereunder, being wholly
inadmissible in evidence could not have been taken into consideration
by the Court while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482CrPC.
It was also held that the High Court committed an error in quashing the
proceedings by assessing the statements recorded under Section
161CrPC.
24. There can be no dispute with respect to the position that statements
recorded under Section 161CrPC are inadmissible in evidence and its
use is limited for the purposes as provided under Sections 145 and 157
of the Evidence Act, 1872. As a matter of fact, statement recorded under
Section 164CrPC can also be used only for such purposes.”
15. Arguendo, accepting the submissions of the learned senior counsel
appearing for the complainant, if examine the statements, both u/s 161 and 164
(the latter of which was handed to us in sealed cover) still, our conclusion that no
prima facie offence is made out on the part of the appellant, does not change. For
reference, the statement of the complainant u/s 161 is reproduced below: –
“The statement under section 161of the Criminal Procedure Code
(CrPC) was given by Pooja Tankha complainant on September 4, 2019.
She stated that she held the position of Director in Laj IDS Export
Company. My partners were R K Aneja and Naresh Aneja, whose office
was located in Sector 63, Noida, at 208. Whenever I worked in the
office, R K Aneja would come to my office and subject me to physical
harassment, touching her from various places without her consent. He
did not heed her refusal. I couldn’t explicitly state where all he touched
me against my will. Concerned about this, when I opposed R K Aneja
and went to the police Station to file a report. However, I was told that
since I has only one son and lives alone I should consider my situation
and that Naresh Aneja was mentally harassing me. Once, when I was
working in that office, Chaman Lal and the pantry boy, Ashish alias
Pawan saved from the indecent actions of R.K Aneja. This incident took
place on September 4, 2019.
Sd/-
04.09.2019”
16. This Court has on numerous occasions considered the power of the High
Courts to quash criminal proceedings u/s 482 CrPC. The scope thereof, therefore,
does not require us to devote substantive portions of this judgment thereto. Only
for the purposes of immediate reference, we take notice of a few pronouncements
16 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
in this regard, other than State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal17, which is recognised
as the locus classicus on the issue.
16.1 This Court’s judgment in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India
Ltd.18 culled out the following principles:-
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case
alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but
without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed
inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of
the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is
warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the
process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have
been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to
cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle
a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with
abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal
ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is
laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have
not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed.
Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so
bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making
out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b)
purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence.
A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from
furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also
involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding
are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the
complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for
which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a
ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
17
(1992) Suppl (1) SCC 335
18
(2006) 6 SCC 736
17 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
16.2 The scope of this power is best remembered in the words of Y.V
Chandrachud J. (as his Lordship then was) writing for the Court in State of
Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy19 wherein it was observed:-
“7… 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.”16.3 Other judgments of this Court in State of A.P. v. Aravapally
Venkanna20; Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra21;
Sachin Garg v. State of U.P.22; Vishal Noble Singh v. State of U.P.23 may
also be seen in this context.
17. Having regard to the judgments above, we are of the view that the sum total
of the circumstances, submissions and documents on record, considered supra, do
not point to appellant (Naresh Aneja) having committed any offence against the
complainant. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgement of the High
19
(1977) 2 SCC 699
20
(2009) 13 SCC 443
21
(2021) 19 SCC 401
22
2024 SCC OnLine SC 82
23
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1680
18 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021
Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in Application u/s 482 No. 18712 of 2020
is set aside. Ex consequenti, criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 1074 of
2019 are quashed qua the present appellant.
18. The appeal is allowed. It is clarified that the observations here are restricted
only to the present Appellant, and no view whatsoever has been expressed in
respect of R.K Aneja, regarding whom the law will continue on its course.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
….……………………J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
….……………….…..J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
January 2, 2025;
New Delhi
19 | SLP (Crl) No. 1093 of 2021