JUDGMENT : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. Since both criminal misc. petitions arise out of common FIR No. FIR No. 148/2014 dated 21.02.2014 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi District Alwar for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and the proceedings arisiong out of the said FIR, therefore, they were heard analoguously and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner has preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3510/2021 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings of Criminal Regular Case No. 1039/2014 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwadi, Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court'), which arose out of FIR No. 148/2014 dated 21.02.2014 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi District Alwar for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC , including order dated 04.06.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby charge was framed against the petitioner for the offence under , as well as to set aside order dated 08.04.2021 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Tijara, District Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the revisional court'), whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of framing charge was dismissed. 3. S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4730/2016 was filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. way back in the year 2016 with a prayer to quash FIR No. 148/2014 dated 21.02.2014 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi District Alwar for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC . 4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are that the petitioner was holding the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent at ESIC Hospital, Bhiwadi, Alwar. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the dispute arose from professional disagreements between the petitioner and his subordinate female officer (complainant), which was rooted in refusal by the complainant to conduct sputum tests under the National Tuberculosis Control Programme at the hospital. When she was questioned about her negligence and insubordination, in order to counter the allegations against her, the complainant sent emails on 22.05.2013 and 23.05.2013 against the petitioner to the higher authorities referring incident of harassment on 21.05.2013, however, there was no whisper whatsoever in the emails regarding any allegation relating to any physical contact, inappropriate touching or use of criminal force. Complaint made by her was referred to an Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter to be referred as “ICC”) constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the POSH Act, 2013'), which was duly constituted in accordance with the provisions of the POSH Act. Aforesaid ICC meticulously enquired the matter and recorded statements of the complainant and all the relevant witnesses; and submitted a report dated 25.01.2014 exonerating the petitioner of any charge of sexual harassment, whatsoever, finding that the allegations levelled by the complainant were baseless and unfounded. The ICC also noted the complainant’s defiant conduct during the inquiry and concluded that her allegations lacked credibility. 5. It is submitted that after such report of ICC giving clean chit to the petitioner, quite maliciously, after expiry of 9 months from the date of alleged incident, on 21.02.2014, FIR for committing offence under section 354 IPC was lodged by the complainant levelling totally false allegations of making inappropriate physical contact by force against the petitioner, which were apparently contradictory to the initial complaint made by the complainant in the department and her statements given before the ICC. 6. It is further stated that ignoring all the relevant material including report dated 25.01.2014 submitted by the ICC, the police authorities filed challan against the petitioner and the trial court, in quite mechanical manner, took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC against the petitioner and without examining the material on record, vide order dated 04.06.2016 charge for committing offence under was framed by the trial court. Order of framing charge was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional court, however, overlooking the grave jurisdictional error and material illegality committed by the trial court, the revisional court has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 08.04.2021 and upon rejection of the revision petition, Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3510/2021 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking quashing of the FIR, charge sheet, order of framing charge and all subsequent criminal proceedings. 7. Mr. Rajeev Surana, learned Senior Counsel as also Mr. Petition No. 3510/2021 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking quashing of the FIR, charge sheet, order of framing charge and all subsequent criminal proceedings. 7. Mr. Rajeev Surana, learned Senior Counsel as also Mr. Shiv Lal Meena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the POSH Act, 2013 is a special enactment for dealing with sexual harassment at the work place and Section 27 of the Act provides for taking cognizance of any offence relating to sexual harassment only on complaint either by the aggrieved lady or by the member of the Committee. In view of the special procedure for prosecution given under the POSH Act, 2013, FIR under section 354 IPC could not have been registered by the police authorities in respect of the allegations specifically referring the offence relating to sexual offence at the work place. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further argued that even otherwise, the FIR and charge sheet were based on a false and unsubstantiated story motivated by malice and personal vendetta of the complainant, ignoring the exoneration of the petitioner by the Statutory Committee under the POSH Act, 2013. It was contended that the delay of nine months in lodging the FIR seriously undermined its credibility of the allegations against the petitioner, yet the same was ignored. The investigation was flawed as it did not consider the ICC report, and some witnesses' statements were apparently missing. Moreover, the complainant’s initial complaints did not allege physical touching, indicating that the FIR was an afterthought to harass the petitioner. 9. Reliance has been placed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decisions in the cases of Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Another, (1996) 9 SCC 766 and Harshendra Kumar D. vs. Rebatilata Koley & Others, (2011) 3 SCC 351 emphasising that the High Court can quash proceedings even after framing of charge, if no prima facie case is made out or if proceedings are manifestly mala fide or without any basis. Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the facts of the instant case qualify all the tests prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2025 Supreme (SC) 1667 , for the purpose of quashing of the criminal proceedings in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the facts of the instant case qualify all the tests prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2025 Supreme (SC) 1667 , for the purpose of quashing of the criminal proceedings in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petitions and submitted that since charges have already been framed and the case was at the stage of prosecution evidence, instant petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. They argued that the forum to challenge the order of framing of charges was either by way of revision or discharge application and the inherent jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. could not be invoked at this stage to quash the proceedings. They urged that the petitioner should have defended the charges in the trial and this Court should not pre- empt the trial process. It was contended that the investigation was proper and that the ICC report did not have the sanctity of judicial findings and hence, cannot not be relied upon to quash criminal proceedings. It was also argued that the woman’s rights to seek both civil redressal through the Internal Complaints Committee or Local Committee (as per the POSH Act, 2013) and criminal justice through police complaint and prosecution, are based upon distinct objectives of the statutory framework, i.e. providing an accessible workplace remedy and ensuring criminal accountability, which can operate concurrently without prejudice to each other. Even otherwise, report of ICC has been challenged by the complainant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur. 11. Perused the record of the case and carefully heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 12. Firstly, the argument raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that criminal prosecution for sexual harassment on workplace can be launched only through complaint under Section 27 of the POSH Act, 2013 and not through FIR, is being examined by this court. 13. The complaint mechanism under Section 27 of the POSH Act, 2013, while providing a specialised forum for addressing grievances related to workplace sexual harassment, is not the sole legal recourse available to an aggrieved woman. 13. The complaint mechanism under Section 27 of the POSH Act, 2013, while providing a specialised forum for addressing grievances related to workplace sexual harassment, is not the sole legal recourse available to an aggrieved woman. Section 28 of the Act explicitly clarifies that the provisions of the POSH Act, 2013 are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force concerning sexual harassment. This legislative intent ensures that an aggrieved woman retains the right to pursue criminal proceedings independently, including lodging a First Information Report (FIR) for offences such as those under Section 354 IPC , which penalises assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. Hence, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard is totally untenable and is hereby rejected. 14. However, on the question of challenge to the criminal proceedings on other grounds raised by the petitioner, upon consideration of the facts and materials on record, this Court finds that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of nearly nine months from the alleged incident and admittedly, the petitioner has been exonerated by a statutory committee, i.e., Internal Complaints Committee. ICC’s inquiry was statutory in nature under the POSH Act, 2013 and could not have been ignored for the purpose of assessing the correctness of the allegations levelled by the complainant. It's report gave clean chit to the petitioner categorically and found the complainant’s allegations were baseless and motivated by malice. However, on registration of FIR, the investigating officer failed to incorporate or consider this vital report, while submitting the charge sheet, which gives indication of an incomplete and biased investigation in the matter. This also casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. 15. Furthermore, upon comparison of initial departmental complaint and the contents of FIR, this court finds total absence of any previous complaint of physical misconduct before the ICC and the complainant’s initial complaints apparently lacked allegations of physical touching or harassment, which only surfaced in the FIR as an afterthought concocted by the complainant after the adverse ICC report. 16. 15. Furthermore, upon comparison of initial departmental complaint and the contents of FIR, this court finds total absence of any previous complaint of physical misconduct before the ICC and the complainant’s initial complaints apparently lacked allegations of physical touching or harassment, which only surfaced in the FIR as an afterthought concocted by the complainant after the adverse ICC report. 16. Regarding the maintainability of a quashing petition at this stage, the court relies on the recent authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12354/2024 decided on 29.11.2024 , wherein the Supreme Court held that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings is maintainable even after the filing of the charge sheet and framing of charges. The Hon'ble Apex Court distinguished quashing petitions from discharge applications, noting the broader scope of challenge available in quashing petitions, including reliance on additional documents beyond the charge sheet and grounds such as abuse of process of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that the existence of framed charges does not oust the power of the High Court under Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of legal process or miscarriage of justice. Strict technical objections to entertainability of quashing petitions after framing of charge was rejected as contrary to the purpose and spirit of Cr.P.C. This Court, therefore, affirms the maintainability of the present petitions despite the trial proceedings being at the stage of prosecution evidence. 17. Upon applying the aforesaid principles to the present facts, this Court finds that the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not disclose any offence attracting Section 354 IPC or any other criminal provision. The FIR and charge sheet, in the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove, clearly reflects mala fide prosecution, abuse of process of law and are founded on distorted facts. The continuation of proceedings would subject the accused to unwarranted harassment, tarnishing his reputation without any credible basis. It would be a travesty of justice to compel the petitioner to undergo trial when the foundational allegations are unsubstantiated on the face of record and material beyond suspicion. This conclusion is also fortified by the ICC report, investigative irregularities and the long delay in lodging FIR. 18. It would be a travesty of justice to compel the petitioner to undergo trial when the foundational allegations are unsubstantiated on the face of record and material beyond suspicion. This conclusion is also fortified by the ICC report, investigative irregularities and the long delay in lodging FIR. 18. Therefore, in exercise of the inherent powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, this Court orders that FIR No. 148/2014 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi, District Alwar along with charge sheet dated 29.04.2014 and all related criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Regular Case No. 1039/2014 are hereby quashed. The impugned orders passed by lower courts for framing charges and rejecting revision petitions are set aside. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner stands discharged of all the charges levelled against him in the aforesaid proceedings. 19. Both the petitions stand allowed accordingly. 20. Interim applications, if any, stand disposed of. 21. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of connected petition.