Delhi District Court
Dr Bipin Batra vs State on 9 December, 2025
CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State
IN THE COURT OF MANU GOEL KHARB:
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)-02 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS:NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.: 280/2025
CNR No.DLSW01-004756
(Arising out of FIR no. 384/2013, Dr. Bipin Batra Vs. State)
Dr. Bipin Batra,
R/o 512, Sector-12,
Pocket 8, DDA Flat, MS Flat,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
.....Appellant
VERSUS
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
.... Respondent
Date of Institution of the Appeal : 27.05.2025
Date of Arguments : 03.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 09.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision against the order dated 08.05.2025 given by the court of Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court-01 vide which the Ld. Trial Court has charged the revisionist Bipin Batra for the offence under Section 354/354A/506/509 IPC read with Section 2 (n) of POSH Act.
2. Revisionist herein is the accused before the Learned Trial Court.
1 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State
3. Brief facts of the present case are that complainant 'R' made a complaint dated 01.10.2013 on the basis of which FIR no. 384/2013 was registered against the revisionist under Section 354/354A/506/509 IPC. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the revisionist and vide order dated 08.05.2025, charge was directed to be framed against him and his prayer seeking discharge was rejected by the Ld. Trial Court.
4. Aggrieved by the said order accused/revisionist has challenged the order of Ld. Trial Court on the following grounds :-
4.1 It is stated that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the unexplained 18-month delay in lodging the FIR and the complete absence of any date of the alleged incident in all proceedings, indicating a fabricated and unspecific allegation causing grave prejudice to the Revisionist. He argued that the timing of the complainant's complaint which is immediately after the CVO's findings dated 26.09.2013 recommending departmental action against her is filed solely with a view to obstruct the departmental process.
4.2 It is further alleged that Ld. Trial Court travelled beyond the complainant's own case by recording findings of alleged harassment beyond 20.03.2013, despite such allegations being absent from the complaint, FIR, and the Complainant's Section 164 statement.
2 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State 4.3 It is further stated that Ld. Trial Court in para 7 of the order, relied on a Supplementary Appeal dated 05.10.2018 which is neither part of the chargesheet and the use of material extraneous to the chargesheet was legally impermissible at the stage of charge. 4.4 That Ld. Trial Court incorrectly used the said document to question the ICC's exoneration of the revisionist, based on factual errors regarding ICC membership and a misunderstanding of departmental proceedings.
4.5 It is further stated that Ld. Trial in para 18 of the order made unfounded assumptions of "indirect harassment" by the Revisionist, which are speculative and unsupported by any material on record and no prima facie elements of a continuing offence are evident. The impugned order is thus based on conjectures, misapplication of law, and material beyond the record, warranting interference. The impugned order is vitiated by multiple legal and factual errors. 4.6 That the Ld. Trial Court travelled beyond the record by introducing findings not supported by the complaint, FIR, or the Complainant's Section 164 statement, and by relying on documents such as a Supplementary Appeal dated 05.10.2018 and an alleged Delhi High Court order dated 04.07.2019 neither of which forms part of the chargesheet, and one of which appears not to exist at all. 4.7 Further, the Ld. JMFC contradicted herself by stating that it lacked jurisdiction to examine ICC findings while 3 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State simultaneously framing a charge under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act--an area reserved for specialized tribunals.
These cumulative errors, reliance on non-existent material, and contradictory reasoning render the impugned order legally unsustainable.
4.8 That the Ld. Trial Court failed to note that the allegations are wholly omnibus, lacking any specific date, time, or particulars of the alleged act, rendering them groundless in law; the Revisionist's reliance on Section 235 BNSS, mandating date and time for framing of charge, was ignored.
4.9 That the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the judgments in Ram Kumar Sharma and Madhavi Arora, which establish that omnibus allegations cannot sustain criminal prosecution.
4.9 Ld. Trial Court acknowledged in paras 31-32 that the settled test is whether the complaint contains any substance, the Ld. Trial Court failed to apply this test to the present case and instead relied on assumptions beyond the chargesheet and even beyond the prosecution's own version.
Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has relied on (1) State of Maharashtra VS Ahmed Shaikh Babajan; (2) Tameezuddin Vs State (NCT of Delhi); (3) S K Bhall Vs State & Ors; (3) Sapna Gautam VS State of NCT of Delhi; (4) P.N. Krishna Lal Vs Govt of Kerala; (5) Narender Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi); (6) Krishna Janardhan 4 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State Bhat Vs Dattatraya G Hegde; (7) Nagawwa Vs Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi; (8) Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra 1994 4 SCC 602 (9) Vaneeta Pattnaik Vs. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & ors. (10) Ashoo Surendranath Tiwari Vs Deputy Superintendentb of Police, EOW, CBI and another (11) Bindu & anr. State of NCT of Delhi and prayed that order of Ld. Trial Court dated 08.05.2025 be set aside.
5. Notice of the revision was sent the complainant who appeared before the court along with her counsel and submitted that learned trial court has passed a well- reasoned order and same needs to be upheld. Counsel for the complainant has also relied upon the order of the appellate authority before which the outcome of inquiry report was challenged and the appellate authority expunged that part of the inquiry report in which disciplinary action was recommended against the complainant. Learned council for the complainant argued that there is no bar to initiation of criminal proceedings even if departmental proceedings are pending and relied upon the judgment of Asif Hamid Khan. He further stated that the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C also prove the fact that the complainant was made to accompany the revisionist in his car. During arguments council for the complainant conceded to the fact that the details regarding the time and place of incident are missing 5 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State in the complaint but submitted that in his opinion the statement of complainant coupled with the statement of independent witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C is sufficient to frame a charge against the revisionist. He further argued that the FIR was registered in October 2013 which is still at the stage of charge and the present revision petition has been filed only to delay the proceedings in the case FIR and it is prayed that the present revision petition be dismissed with costs. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment in case of : 1) Asif Hamid Khan vs State ; (2) The State vs Suraj.
6. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and Ld. Counsel for the complainant/ respondent no. 2 as well as perused the TCR and I have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the parties.
ANALYSIS
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Prafful Kumar Samal & ors. 1979 (Cri) 609 enunciated the following principles with respect to the framing of charge :-
(i) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
6 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State
(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(iv) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
8. The Apex court further held in the case of Sajjan Kumar vs CBI reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371 as under :-
"9. The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the 7 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
Thus, the fundamental basis for forming an opinion regarding framing of charges revolves around whether there is adequate evidence on record to establish, prima facie, the commission of an offence.
Points for determination :-
9. The issues for determination as culled out from the submissions made by the parties are-:
8 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State (I)Whether criminal proceedings are maintainable even if, departmental proceedings result in exoneration of the accused from the allegations made in the complaint; (II) Whether the trial court committed illegality in law by framing charge u/s 354A IPC which was introduced after the registration of FIR.
(III) Whether the Ld. Trial Court rightly framed charged u/s 2(n) of POSH Act.
(IV) Whether the contents of FIR, statement of the complainant and the independent witnesses fulfill the requirements of charge defined in Section 212 of Cr.P.C. so as to frame charge under Section 354, 506, 509 IPC?
Point wise discussion:-
10. Point No. I:- Whether criminal proceedings are maintainable even if, departmental proceedings result in exoneration of the accused from the allegations made in the complaint?
In this regard, Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant relied upon the judgment of 'Asif Hamid Khan Vs. State' delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein in a similar case of sexual harassment of respondent no. 2 by her superior officer was reported to the police as well as a complaint was made to the department and the court came to the conclusion that there is no legal bar to conduct departmental proceedings 9 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State and a criminal trial simultaneously. It was held that purpose of departmental proceedings are distinct from the criminal proceedings; the purpose of criminal proceedings being prosecution of offenders for commission of an offence by them. The Court even went to the extent of observing that outcome of the departmental inquiry will not have any binding effect or act as an estoppel for adjudicating criminal offence and the parameters for both the proceedings are different- one being punitive in nature and the other merely recommending departmental action against the wrong doer. Hence, it is clear that the exoneration of the accused in departmental proceedings is not sufficient to discharge the accused in the criminal proceedings pending against him. Hence, the submissions is rightly rejected by the Ld. Trial Court.
11. Point no. II :- Whether the trial court committed illegality in law by framing charge u/s 354A IPC which was introduced after the registration of FIR.
11.1 Section 354 A of IPC was introduced by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 (The Act of 2013) to specifically define and punish the offence of sexual harassment as the earlier definition was considered to be not including the acts of unwelcome physical advances, demand for sexual favors, showing pornography against 10 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State one's will and making sexually colored remarks within its ambit. Ld. Trial Court has charged the accused for the offence u/s 354 A IPC, whereas, The Act of 2013 came into force on 03.02.2013. Now the question arises whether the act of 2013 would also apply to offences which occurred before the act came into force.
11.2 At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Article 20(1) of Constitution of India which says:
'1. No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence'.
11.3 Article 20 of the Indian Constitution provides for protection against Ex-Post Facto laws and prohibits that a person cannot again be convicted for an act that was not an offence when it was committed.
It prohibits the retrospective application of Ex-Post Facto laws and safeguards individuals from arbitrariness of the State. The clear implication of Article 20 (1) is that a person cannot be penalized for an act which was lawful when committed but subsequently declared unlawful by a law enacted later on because the new laws were not in existence at the time when offence was committed.
11.4 Coming to facts of the present case, FIR was registered on 01.10.2013 but the allegations date back 11 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State to March 2012 i.e. the time when The Amendment Act of 2013 had not come into force. The last incident of alleged sexual harassment happened in the month of March 2012 and no incident of sexual harassment took place after March 2012. A mere registration of FIR on a date subsequent to the coming into the force of Act of 2013 would not justify the prosecution of the accused for an act which was committed prior to the Act itself.
11.5 Hence, in my considered opinion, Ld. Trial Court erred in law by framing charge against the accused for the offence u/s 354A IPC which would operate prospectively and not retrospectively and hence, the order of Ld. Trial Court is set aside in this regard.
12 Point No.(III) : Whether the Ld. Trial Court rightly framed charged u/s 2(n) of Posh Act.
12.1 The POSH Act provides for a unique mechanism and procedure for dealing with the complaints which are filed by women who are victims of sexual harassment at workplace under the POSH Act. Section 2(n) of POSH Act defines the offence of sexual harassment at workplace. Under the Act, every department constitutes an Internal Complaints Committee which conducts inquiry into the 12 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State allegations of sexual harassment and after conclusion of the inquiry, prepares a report making certain recommendations against the delinquent official. On the contrary, the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class can try offences under various penal provisions of law and can impose any of the sentences provided under Section 29 the CrPC (now section 23 BNSS) but there's no provision to award substantive sentence under the POSH Act. Section 2 of POSH Act is merely a defining section and Section 2(n) defines the offence of sexual harassment but there is no punishing section under the POSH Act which prescribes punishment for its violation. There is no substantive sentence which is prescribed under the POSH Act but if the complaint filed by the aggrieved women discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, then parallel proceedings under IPC (now BNSS) can also be initiated. The remedy under POSH Act is more of a civil remedy and hence the ld. Trial court committed yet another error in law by proceeding to frame charge against the accused u/s 2(n) of POSH Act which is primarily an administrative remedy and hence, the accused is also discharged for the same and hence, the order of Ld. Trial Court is set aside in this regard.
13. Point No. (IV) : Whether the contents of FIR, statement of the complainant and the independent witnesses fulfills the requirement or essential ingredients 13 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State of charge defined in Section 212 of Cr.P.C. so as to frame charge under Section 354, 506, 509 IPC?
13.1 Charge means 'accusation'. Section 212 CrPC provides that charge should contain particulars as to time, place and person. It reads as under :
"1. The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
2........"
13.2 Section 211 Cr.P.C specifies the essential ingredients of charge including the name of offences, relevant law/sections, particulars of time, place, person etc. The purpose of giving so much details in the charge is that the accused should have clarity in understanding the accusations he is facing and could help him in raising his defence properly and clearly. If there is any ambiguity in framing the charge or any of the specific ingredients of the charge are missing, then prejudice would be caused to the accused as he will not get a proper opportunity to raise his defence.
13.3 In the case of 'Court on its own motion Vs. Shankaru (1982), it is observed that mere mentioning of the section under which the accused is charged without mentioning the proper details of the offence, amounts to 14 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State serious breach of procedure. Again, in the case of Dal Chand Vs. State in which the court held that the defect in charge vitiates the proceedings.
13.4 In light of the above background, now let us look into the facts of the present case.
13.5 Complainant mentioned in her complaint that in year 2011, she was posted in Admin Section of National Board of Examinations as Senior Assistant but was verbally directed by revisionist who was Executive Director, NBE to work in his Personal Section and after 5-6 months, complainant was directed by the revisionist to accompany him to various meetings held at various places at Delhi. During that period, the revisionist started making sexual advances towards the complainant and harassed her on various occasions. In march 2012, on one occasion, revisionist also showed her a Porn Movie in his laptop. Later the complainant was transferred on 20.03.2012 to the Confidential Section and she somehow gathered courage and filed a complaint against the revisionist on 01.10.2013 which culminated into the present FIR.
13.6 From the allegations, it is seen that the complainant worked till March 2012 in the same department as that of the revisionist and thereafter she was 15 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State transferred. Even during investigation, statement of complainant was got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she reiterated the allegations as mentioned by her to the police in her complaint/FIR and she also stated some more facts before the Ld. Magistrate. During investigation, police also recorded the statement of independent witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
13.7 A perusal of contents of the FIR and the narration of facts under 164 Cr.P.C. would clearly show that there is no mention of any specific date, time or place of any of the incidents. Admittedly, the complainant remained posted under the revisionist from the time she joined in 2011 till March 2012 but she has failed to give any particular date or time of any of the incidents on which she was allegedly harassed by the revisionist. The sole purpose of chalking out the details of the incident is to give the accused notice of such accusation so that he understands what exactly he has to answer during trial of the case. If the accused has to prepare his defence or raise a plea of alibi, then the accusations mentioned in the charge would give him an idea as to what he has to defend during the trial of the case. In the case in hand, the complainant has given a vague period when she was allegedly harassed by the revisionist and no details of time and place have been mentioned. There is no specific or even approximate date and time for the alleged incident. Complainant's allegations are vague, inconsistent, and devoid of essential 16 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State details, failing to disclose the commission of any offence or satisfy the ingredients of the penal provisions mentioned in the FIR dated 01.10.2013. Even, the counsel appearing for the complainant has conceded to this fact during arguments that the details regarding time, place etc., are missing in the chargesheet. There is no way to come to the conclusion that complainant was sexually harassed on a given date and in absence of such details, the accused would not be in a position to prepare his defence because the complainant has failed to point out the specific dates when she was called by the revisionist to accompany him for official meetings on the pretext of which she was sexually harassed.
13.8 It is not the case that the court is having a doubt on the veracity of allegations leveled against the revisionist by the complainant but the difficulty is that the material on record is lacking in specific particulars which may form the basis of framing a charge against the accused. Even the independent witnesses examined by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. have failed to lend any support as they have not uttered a single word with respect to the alleged incident of harassment. At best, they are witnesses of the fact that the complainant and revisionist used to travel together in car for official meetings. Except this, none of the witnesses have uttered a single word of 17 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State harassment being faced by the complainant at the hands of revisionist.
13.9 In the case in hand, the allegations set out in the FIR and statements of the witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC do not disclose necessary ingredients of the offences alleged and even if the complainant steps into the witness box and corroborates each and every allegation leveled by her in the complaint, then also there are hardly any chances that the matter would result into conviction of the accused. The reason again being the failure of complainant to narrate the basic details/ particulars of any of the instances.
13.10 It is a settled law that if from the admitted evidence of the prosecution as reflected in the documents filed by the Investigating Officer in the report under Section 173 CrPC, if the necessary ingredients of an offence are not made out, then the Court is not obligated to frame a charge. If fundamental elements of the alleged offense are not made out from the evidence and material produced by the prosecution, the court has a duty not to frame the charge and should discharge the accused. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of framing charge, the court merely has to see whether any case is made out against the accused or not. In the present case, there is insufficient material on record to make out a case against the accused and if two views are possible, the 18 of 19 CR no. 280-2025 Dr. Bipin Batra Vs State court should adopt a view which benefits the accused as there is hardly any possibility that the case would result in conviction of the accused.
14. From the contents of FIR and the investigation done so far, there is insufficient material to proceed against the accused for the offences under section 354/506/509 IPC and hence, the order of Ld. Trial Court is set aside.
Conclusion
15. In light of above discussion, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 is set aside. Revisionist Dr. BipinBatra is hereby discharged for the offences under section 354/354A/506/509 IPC and Section 2 (n) of POSH Act.
16. Trial court record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court/Successor court alongwith a copy of this order.
17. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedMANU by MANU GOEL KHARB Pronounced in the open Court today GOEL Date:
2025.12.09 i.e. 09.12.2025 KHARB 18:01:43 +0530 (Manu Goel Kharb) Special Judge (NDPS)-02 Dwarka Courts, New Delhi 19 of 19