Delhi District Court
State vs Bhoopati Arora on 19 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR: ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) (CBI) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision Number : 32/16
Unique ID No. 02406R0143562016
State
Trough Public Prosecutor, Delhi
.......................Revisionist.
Versus
Bhoopati Arora
S/o Sh. Ram Narain Arora,
R/o C-42, DDA Flat,
Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi
.......................Respondent
Date of institution of Revision : 12/04/2016
Date of Allocation : 18/04/2016
Date of conclusion of arguments : 19/07/2016
Date of Judgment : 19/07/2016
Particulars related to impugned order:
FIR No. : 710/15
PS : Saket
Date of impugned order : 13/01/2016
Name of learned Trial Court : Ms Pooja Aggarwal
MM-02/ (Mahila Court), South
Saket Courts/N.D./13.01.2016
New Delhi.
Memo of Appearance
Ld Additional PP for State
Sh Narender Kumar Arora, Ld Counsel for respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. The present is a judicial verdict on a revision petition filed against the order, dated 13/01/2016, passed by Ld Trial Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
2 Present revision has been filed by the State , against the order, dated 13/01/2016, vide which Ld Trial Court had discharged the accused of the offence U/S 354A of IPC, in FIR No. 710/15.
3 Trial court record has been summoned and perused.
4 Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant to the effect that she was working in ALDO store in Select City Mall, Saket, where the accused was working as area Manager and he used to harass her and torture her for 2-3 months. It has further been alleged in the complaint that accused also tried to get physical with her and she was forced to work for extra hours to achieve the targets despite that it has not been the part of her offer letter that the job is a target base job. She was also forced to resign from the job. After the completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Court and Ld Trial Court had taken the cognizance for the offence u/s 354A of IPC. Thereafter, accused was summoned to appear before the Court. Thereafter, on appearance of the accused, he was admitted to bail and copies were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, on the point of Charge, Ld Trial Court discharged the accused for the offences U/S 354A of IPC.
5. Aggrieved from the said order, revisionist i.e. State has preferred this revision. It has been contended by Ld Addl PP for the State that the impugned order of discharge is not justified and is unreasonable and is against the basic principles of the law to be applied at the stage of Charge. It has further been contended that Ld MM has failed to appreciate the complaint of the complainant and also her statement recorded Under Section 164 of Cr.PC. It has further been contended that on the question of framing of charge U/s 227 of Cr.PC, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Kartar Singh and Others Vs CBI dated 23.09.2008 has held , that at the stage of framing of Charge, the Court is required to find out if the facts emerging there from , taken at their face value, disclose the existence of the all the ingredients, constituting the alleged offence. It has further been contended that, at the stage of Charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record.
6 On the other hand, Ld Counsel for respondent has contended that the complainant had given a false complaint, against the respondent and the Ld Trial Court has rightly discharged the accused as there is no material on record file to frame the charge against the accused. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court had taken into consideration all the material placed on the record file while passing the order, dated 13/01/2016, and there is no ground to set aside the same.
7 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions of both the sides and have carefully perused the entire trial court record, including the complaint and various documents on record.
8 Ld Trial Court in its impugned order, dated 13/01/2016, has observed that:-
"In the instant case, the entire allegations on record even if accepted as true in its entirety do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 354A of IPC as there are no allegations of physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. Even though a vague allegation of accused trying to get physical with the complainant has been made, the allegations to satisfy the ingredients of the same involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overture is conspicuous by absence. Even the allegations of the accused jerking her hand does not indicate any explicit sexual overture as indicated by the Section 354A IPC. The allegation as to the complainant being forced to wear short dresses also remains vague.
Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances, the charge for offence under Section 354A IPC against the accused appears to be groundless and hence he is discharged of the said offence in the present FIR no. 710/15 PS Saket."
9 At the outset, it may be mentioned here that at the stage of framing of charges/notice only, prima facie, case has to be seen. 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.
10 In Sonu Gupta Vs Deepak Gupta and Ors, it has been held by Supreme Court that, " It is also well settled that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. Hence at the stage of framing of charge an individual accused may seek discharge if he or she can show that the materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of charge against that particular accused. But such exercise is required only at a later stage, as indicated above and not at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused on the basis of prima facie case. Even at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the court finds that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. It is also a settled proposition of law that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial"
11 Section 354A (1) is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment-
(1) A man committing any of the following acts-
(i) Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
12 It is clear from the above quoted section 354A of IPC that in order to attract this Section there must be sexual harassment committed by the accused, against the victim in order to frame the charge. Int he present matter, there is no material on the record file to show that there was any such harassment, hence respondent cannot be charged for the offence punishable u/s 354A of IPC. In the present matter, after going through the record file, I am of the considered view there is no material on the record file to show that respondent Bhoopati Arora at any time sexually harassed the complainant. There is no allegation of physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. There is nothing on record file that the respondent at any point of time sexually harassed the complainant. The mere fact that respondent told the complainant to improve her performance does not imply that he misused his position. Thus the allegations levelled by the complainant are baseless and without any basis and are not sufficient enough to frame charge against the accused/respondent U/S 354A of IPC.
13 In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that there is no material available on record showing that accused has either made any physical contact and advances involving any unwelcome and explicit sexual overture or that there was any demand or request for sexual favour or he had made any sexually coloured remarks. Hence, in my view, Ld Trial Court is fully justified in discharging the accused for the offence u/s 354A of IPC, as there was no material before the Court to proceed with the trial. There is no illegality, irregularity and infirmity in the order passed by Ld Trial Court and Ld Trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order keeping, in view the material placed before it.
14 In view of the above observations, present revision petiton is, hereby, dismissed as there is no ground to allow it.
15 A copy of this judgment be sent to learned Trial Court along with the trial court record.
16 File related to Revision Petition be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( Ramesh Kumar)
on 19th of July, 2016 ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)
South Distt: Saket Courts:
New Delhi