Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has refused to grant relief to Trilochan Das, General Manager (Administration) of Manganese Ore (India) Limited (MOIL), who had petitioned for quashing of an FIR and chargesheet filed against him by a female colleague in a sexual harassment case.
After detailed hearings, the division bench of Justice Anil Pansare and Justice M.M. Nerlikar dismissed the plea, observing that the allegations of sexual harassment and stalking appeared prima facie true and were substantiated by WhatsApp messages sent by Das.
Gold Rate
18 Aug 2025
The FIR against Das was registered under Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, followed by the filing of a chargesheet in the trial court.
According to the complaint, Das frequently called the woman to his chamber with ill intent, complimented her skin and hair, and remarked that she looked good in Western attire. The complainant also cited multiple instances where he allegedly attempted to get physically close and sent unsolicited WhatsApp messages.
In one message, Das allegedly wrote: “I u for u always free, you are queen of MOIL. Since you have closed your eye towards me, need your full support.” Another message dated May 5, 2023 read: “Since you have closed your eye towards me, I thought I should not disturb you and will respect your distancing attitude.” On May 31, 2023, he also sent her a message saying “Nice DP.”
The woman further alleged an incident on May 4, 2023, when after completing corrections in a file and bending to take a printout, Das made an obscene gesture. When she confronted him, he apologized and assured her it would not happen again.
Das’s counsel, Advocate Amol Hunge, argued that the complaint was filed out of retaliation, as Das had earlier sought an explanation from the complainant in connection with office work. However, the court rejected this defence, noting that while the complaint did mention the explanation issue, the WhatsApp chats corroborated the sexual harassment charges.
In its order, the court held that the applicant not only harassed the complainant with physical gestures and sexually coloured remarks but also pursued her repeatedly for personal interaction despite her clear refusal.
