Archive · 29 Jul 2026
Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses to Cancel Sexual Harassment Case
The Chhattisgarh High Court decided not to cancel a case against a court employee accused of sexual harassment.
The employee argued that the case was false and filed in revenge, but the court said these arguments should be heard during the trial.
The court also noted that the initial evidence suggests a crime might have been committed.
The employee claimed he was falsely accused and that the police did not properly investigate.
The court decided to let the trial proceed to examine all the evidence.
The Chhattisgarh High Court refused to cancel a sexual harassment case against a court employee.
The court held that allegations of false implication and delay in lodging the FIR must be examined during the trial.
The petitioner argued that the case was filed in retaliation for departmental proceedings against the complainant's husband.
The prosecution maintained that the FIR and charge-sheet disclosed cognizable offenses.
The court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, allowing the trial to proceed.
- Who
- Chhattisgarh High Court, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agarwal, a court employee (petitioner), and a woman (complainant)
- What
- The court refused to cancel a sexual harassment case against a court employee, holding that allegations must be examined during the trial.
- When
- The alleged incident occurred on December 29, 2025. The court's decision was made on July 27.
- Where
- Chhattisgarh High Court, India
- Why
- The court found that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offenses.
Petitioner's Defense
Prosecution's Argument
False Implication
Petitioner's Defense
The petitioner claims the allegations are false and were made in retaliation for departmental proceedings against the complainant's husband.
Prosecution's Argument
The prosecution argues that the FIR and charge-sheet disclose cognizable offenses and the defense can be examined during the trial.
Delay in FIR
Petitioner's Defense
The petitioner argues that the FIR was lodged 17 hours after the alleged incident without explanation.
Prosecution's Argument
The prosecution states that the delay is a matter of defense to be examined during the trial.
Evidence
Petitioner's Defense
The petitioner claims the charge sheet was filed without independent or corroborative evidence.
Prosecution's Argument
The prosecution maintains that the FIR and charge-sheet are sufficient to proceed with the case.
- Court
- Chhattisgarh High Court
- Judges
- Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agarwal
- Petitioner
- Court employee
- Complainant
- Wife of a dismissed court peon
- Alleged Incident Date
- December 29, 2025
- Charges
- Sexual harassment and house trespass under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
- Petitioner's Disability
- 50% permanent locomotor disability
- Court's Decision
- Dismissed the petition as devoid of merit