Delhi District Court
Chander Praksh vs State Of Delhi on 29 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-018616-2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No.: 549/2024
SHRI. CHANDER PRAKASH,
S/o. Shri. Babulal,
R/o. House No. 6611,
Gali No. 5, Block No. 9,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi. ... REVISIONIST/
PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)
Through SHO/IO,
PS. Prasad Nagar,
Delhi. ... RESPONDENT
Date of filing : 27.11.2024
Date of institution : 04.12.2024
Date when judgment was reserved : 10.11.2024
Date when judgment is pronounced : 29.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Sections 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS')/pari materia with Sections 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C./Code'), seeking setting aside of the order dated 09.09.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order'), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court)-04/Ld. JMFC (Mahila Court)-04, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. JMFC/Ld. Trial Court'), in case bearing, 'State v. Chander Parkash, Cr. Case No. 10872/2022', arising out of FIR No. 203/2022, PS. Prasad Nagar, Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 1 of 32 2025.11.29 16:18:30 +0530 under Sections 354/354B/506/509/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Pertinently, by virtue of the impugned order the Ld. Trial Court directed framing of charges under Sections 354/354B/506/509/323 IPC against the revisionist/petitioner herein.
2. Succinctly, the genesis of the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court was a complaint dated 25.03.2022, filed by the complaint, namely, Ms. 'KD1' (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant/prosecutrix/victim'), addressed to SHO, PS Prasad Nagar inter alia averring that in the year 2018, one of her sons, namely, Rajiv was murdered by Chander Prakash @ Billu, the revisionist herein. As per the complainant, in this respect FIR bearing no. 297/2018 was registered at PS. Prasad Nagar and the proceedings pursuant thereto were sub judice (मेरे दो बेटे थे जिनमें से एक जिसका नाम राजीव का मर्डर चन्दर प्रकाश बिल्लू व नीरज ने सन 2018 में किया था। जिसके विषय में FIR 0297/18 प्रसाद नगर थाने में दर्ज हु ई थी। और मुकदमा कोर्ट में चल रहा है ). Congruently, it was proclaimed by the complainant that on 24.03.2022 at around 06:45 p.m., her son namely, Sanjeev was present at a welding shop, in their gali/locality (कल समय करीब 6:45 PM SE 7 PM दिनाक 24/03/2022 को मेरा बेटा सजीव हमारी गली में वेल्डिंग वाले की दुकान पर बैठा था). Suddenly, as per the complainant, the revisionist reached there, shoved Sanjeev and uttered to him that he/Sanjeev had send him/the revisionist to jail and that since the revisionist was out from jail at that point in time, he/Sanjeev should compromise (the matter/dispute) with him, else he/the revisionist would also kill Sanjeev, as he had killed Sanjeev's brother (तभी चन्दर प्रकारा व बिल्लू अपनी दुकान से पानी लेने के 1 Digitally Identity of the complainant/prosecutrix and that of her relatives and other particular have been deliberately signed by withheld in view of the decisions in; Birbal Kumar Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3464; X v. ABHISHEK State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 279; and Saleem v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 3 HCC (Del) 365: ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2023 SCC OnLine Del 2190.
2025.11.29 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 2 of 32 16:18:37 +0530 बहाने अपनी दुकान से आया और मेरे बेटे संजीव को धक्का देकर कहने लगा कि तुमने मुझे जेल भिजवाया अय में बाहर आ गया हूं। तो तुम समझौता कर लो नहीं तो तेरे भाई कि तरह तुझे भी खत्म कर दूंगा।). As Sanjeev is asserted to have retaliated/objected, the revisionist slapped Sanjeev and started to abuse him (मेरे बेटे सजीव के विरोध करने पर बन्दर प्रकाश ने उसे थप्पड़ मारा और गाली गलौच शुरू कर दी।). It is further the case of the complainant that when she tried to intervene, the revisionist grabbed and pulled her hair and told her that he would have to kill all the family members of the complainant's family (जब मैं बचाव करने के लिए बीच में गई तो चन्दर प्रकाश ने मेरे बाल पकड़ कर बीच दिए और मुझे बोले कि तुम्हारे तो पुरे परिवार को ही खत्म करना पड़ेगा।). The complainant further avowed under her complaint that she pushed the revisionist in order to save herself, however, the revisionist pulled her suit, while grabbing the same from neck; clutched and threw her chunni at some distance, while also abusing her, intimidating the complainant to take back her case, failing which, she was threatened that dire consequences would ensue (मैं ने खुद को बचाने के लिए चन्दर प्रकाश को धक्का मारा तो उसने मेरे सूट को गले से पकड़ कर खींच दिया और मेरी चुन्नी पकड़ कर फै क दी। और मुझे थप्पड़ मारा चन्दर प्रकाश व बिल्लू ने मुझे बहु त गाली गलौच की और मुझे कहा कि तुम अपना के स वापिस ले लो। वरना अजाम बहु त बुरा होगा।). It is further chronicled under the complainant's complaint that the shopkeepers who were present at the spot, intervened and halted the scuffle. Consequently, on the basis of the complainant's instant complaint, the present FIR was registered, and investigation ensued. Pertinently, in the meanwhile, MLC of the complainant was got conducted, wherein it was inter alia recorded, "...swelling ć tenderness (+) at Lt. arm region ć rom..." 2.1. Markedly, during the course of ensuing investigation, site plan of the place of occurrence was got prepared Digitally signed by ABHISHEK at the instance of the complainant. Correspondingly, the concerned ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 16:18:44 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 3 of 32 +0530 police officials are asserted to have made enquiries from the local persons as well as endeavored to obtain CCTV footage, covering the incident, however, in vain. Congruently, the revisionist was arrested, and the statement of the complainant was got recorded in terms of the provisions under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein the complainant inter alia proclaimed, as under;
"...24/3/22 को मेरा बेटा Sanjeev, welding की दुकान पर बैठा था। Chander Prakash मेरे बेटे की तरफ आया और बोला कि मैं तुझे छोड़ूंगा नहीं, case वैपिस ले लो। उसने मेरे बेटे को थप्पड़ मारा। आवाज सुनकर मैं नीचे आई। मैं ने पूछा कि झगड़ा क्यों करते हो। Chander Prakash ने मुझे थप्पड़ मारा। उसने बाल खींचे, मेरी चुन्नी फें क दिया। उसने मुझे गंदी गंदी गालियां दी। तो मुझे धमकी देता है कि case वापस ले लो। रात को Chander Prakash का बेटा Neeraj नीचे आकर बोला कि अपने बाप के लिए मैं 10 खून भी कर सकता हूं।..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.2. Subsequently, during the course of ongoing investigation, supplementary statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded; nature of injuries of the complainant were obtained, which were determined as 'simple'; and on conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Ld. Trial Court. Noticeably, upon such chargesheet being filed, Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 10.01.2023, took cognizance of the offences, as specified under the chargesheet and issued summons/notice to the revisionist. Subsequently, on the revisionist's entering appearance, compliance of provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C. was carried out by the Ld. Trial Court on 14.03.2023. Thereafter, on the arguments on the aspect of charge as well as revisionist's application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. having been addressed by/on behalf of the revisionist and that on behalf of the State, Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 09.09.2024, Digitally signed by ABHISHEK directed framing of charges against the revisionist, inter alia under ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 16:18:50 +0530 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 4 of 32 the following observations;
"5. It is trite law that at the stage of framing of the charges, the Court has to look at the material supplied by the prosecution to form a prima facie opinion, as to whether the offences as alleged, could possibly have been committed. At the same time, the Court cannot act as a mere post office and has to apply its judicial mind to reach the conclusion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dipak Bhai Jagdishchandra Patelv. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC Online SC 588, has held as follows:
*** *** *** The above principles have also been recently affirmed in the case, State (NCT) of Delhi Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors, (2020) 2 SCC 290.
6. Per contra, the accused person has denied these allegations as false and fabricated and there are not sufficient material to frame charges against the accused person.
7. A perusal of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, prima facie, show that the offences as mentioned in the charge-sheet are clearly attracted against the accused person. Further, in the statement u/s 164 CrPC, allegations are very specific and clear against the accused persons. Moreover, the veracity of the allegations, as levelled by the complainant, are a matter of trial and can only be determined once evidence is led. At this stage, there is sufficient material on record, to presume that the offence, as alleged, may have been committed by the accused person. Therefore, at this stage, based on the material on record, the offences under Sec.
354-354B/323/506/509 IPC is attracted against the accused person.
Be listed for framing of charge on 05.11.2024..."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere conjunctures, surmises and in contravention of the settled cannons of law, deserving to be set aside at the outset, as suffering with gross illegality. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 5 of 32 16:18:56 +0530 assumptions and that no sound and/or cogent reasons have been delineated under the said order. Ld. Counsel further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court further failed to appreciate that the entire story of the complainant is concocted, false and nor reliable. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently argued that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the complainant roped the revisionist in the present case, with ulterior motivate and oblique designs of taking revenge. Correspondingly, it was argued that the Ld. Trial Court, while passing the impugned order failed to consider that there was a delay of around two days in registration of FIR, which has nowhere been explained by the complainant, either under her complaint or subsequently. As per the Ld. Trial Court, the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the settled judicial dictates and the fact that the delay in registration of FIR, which remains unexplained is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Ld. Counsel further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court further failed to appreciate that from the material placed on record, even the basic ingredients of the provisions/offences under Section 323, 354, 354B, 506 and 509 IPC are not even prima facie established against the revisionist. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court, while passing the impugned order ignored the final report filed by the IO as well as failed to consider that the complainant's son, who allegedly witnessed the entire incident was neither examined by the police, nor made a witness in the present case. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel even the MLC of the complainant's son has not even been placed on record, despite him being asserted to be a key witness as initially Digitally fight is asserted to have transpired between him and the revisionist. signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 6 of 32 16:19:04 +0530 Even otherwise, it was argued that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the revisionist are belied by the fact that the revisionist's is a senior citizen. In contrast, as per the Ld. Counsel, the complainant's son is of 40 (forty) years of age, ruling out commission of any act/incident by the revisionist against the complainant or her son in the instant case. 3.1. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further asserted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that despite there being specific allegation by the complainant that the revisionist/accused pulled her/complainant's suit at her neck and picked up her chunni as well as threw it, the IO has made no endeavor to recover and/or place on record, the said chunni/dupatta. Even otherwise, the description of such chunni is wanting on record. It was further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that no public person has been made witness by the prosecution in the present case, despite there being specific averment by the complainant that public had gathered at the place of incident and shopkeepers also reached at her rescue. Even otherwise, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the injuries mentioned in MLC of the victim are self-inflicted to falsely implicate the revisionist. Correspondingly, it was argued that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the statement of the complainant and her medical evidence are inconsistent and do not support the case of the prosecution. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently argued that though under the complainant's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as her complaint, though, there are no allegations of twisting of her left arm, however, the complainant's MLC shows that there was pain in the left arm region and that she was Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 7 of 32 16:19:08 +0530 given treatment for the pain. It was further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate and consider the fact that as per the MLC, medical examination of the complainant was conducted on 25.03.2022 at 10:59 p.m., however, as per the statement of the IO, SI Anita Kumari, Ct. Sheeba Khan and supplementary statement of the complainant, the MLC was got conducted on 26.03.2022.
Even otherwise, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the Ld. Trial Court erred in not considered that under the MLC conducted on 26.03.2022, the age of injuries is mentioned as fresh. However, the incident is alleged to have happened on 24.03.2022 at about 07:00 p.m. 3.2. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that there is deliberate omission by the concerned police official/IO in placing CCTV footage of incident on record despite the fact that place of incident was covered round the clock by CCTV surveillance. Correspondingly, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist vehemently reiterated that from the facts and material placed on record, ingredients of offence under Sections 354/354B/506/509/323 IPC are not even prima facie made out in the instant case as there is no mens rea on the part of the revisionist, demonstrable even from the material placed before the Ld. Trial Court. Correspondingly, it was argued that the alleged acts of slapping, pushing, and pulling chunni took place, if at all, during a heated neighborhood altercation arising from admitted prior enmity between the parties. It was further submitted that it was in fact, the complainant who picked up the fight and the material on record, as per the Ld. Counsel, demonstrate that the dominant intention was at best to quarrel and to threat complainant's son to Digitally signed by retract from the ongoing criminal case against the revisionist and ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 16:19:13 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 8 of 32 +0530 the complainant's son. It was further argued by the Ld. Counsel that the impugned order is not only vague and notional, rather, passed by the Ld. Trial Court without application of mind. In this regard, Ld. Counsel reiterated that the Ld. Trial Court mechanically passed the impugned order against the revisionist by not appreciating and taking into consideration, the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel that while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court was further oblivious to the fact that even in case when prosecution would lead the evidence collected during investigation, no conviction would ensue. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing a trial on the basis of the material, which clearly shows that neither any incident transpired at the behest of the revisionist, nor was the revisionist, any way involved in the commission thereof. It was further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court also failed to give any sound, cogent or justified reasons for passing the impugned order, which adversely affects the rights of the revisionist. Consequently, the Ld. Counsel prayed that the impugned order, being passed in gross violation of law and settled judicial precedents, deserves to be set aside, outrightly. In support of the said contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in; Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 775; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194; Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana, (1997) 7 SCC 231; Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 10 SCC 394; Bhagwanti v. State, 2002 (1) JCC 127; and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4.
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that Digitally the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court after due signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 9 of 32 16:19:30 +0530 appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the present case and, as such, deserves no interference by this Court. It was further submitted that no irregularity, impropriety, or incorrectness can be attributed to the impugned order, as well as the framing of charges against the revisionist, which was/were passed by the Ld. Trial Court, cognizant of the principles of law, as well as wary of the facts and circumstances brought forth. As per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the arguments contended by/on behalf of the revisionist are in the nature of revisionist's defence, which cannot be considered by the Court at the stage of framing of charge. Even otherwise, sufficiency of the material/evidence placed on record, is not a fact which can be considered at the stage of framing of charges.
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as that of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, heard as well as the records, including the Ld. Trial Court records as well as the written submissions and case laws, placed on record have been thoroughly perused.
6. Before proceeding with the determination of the merits of the case/issues posed before this Court, it would be apposite to outrightly make a reference to the relevant provisions under law, in particular that under law/Section 438 BNSS 2, as under;
"438. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge 2 Pari materia provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., which provides, "397. Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.***Explanation - All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether Digitally signed by exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of ABHISHEK this sub-section and of Section 398.***(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised ABHISHEK GOYAL in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding..." (Emphasis supplied) GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 10 of 32 16:19:38 +0530 may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on his own bond or bail bond pending the examination of the record.
*** *** *** (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-
section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding...."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Pertinently, from a perusal of the aforesaid, it is quite evident that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be agitated either suo motu or an application of parties, that too in a case(s) where there is a palpable error, non-compliance of the provision of law, decision of Trial Court being completely erroneous or where the judicial decision is exercised arbitrarily. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, wherein the Hon'ble Court while explicating the various contours of the provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. (pari materia with Section 438 BNSS), observed as under;
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with Digitally signed by law. If one looks into the various judgments of this ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 be invoked where the decisions under challenge are 16:19:43 +0530 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 11 of 32 grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.K. Verma v. CBI, 2022 SCC Online Del 1192, in a similar context noted as under;
"67. The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Quite evidently, it may be noted from above that the Digitally revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is quite limited and signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 16:19:53 +0530 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 12 of 32 cannot be exercised in a routine manner. In fact, as aforenoted, the revisional Court can interfere only in the instances where an order of trial court was passed, unjustly and unfairly. Further, it is a settled law3 that trite law that in a case where the order of subordinate Court does not suffer from any illegality, "merely because of equitable considerations, the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re-consider the matter and pass a different order in a routine manner." Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Taron Mohan v. State, 2021 SCC Online Del 312 , wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi expounded as under;
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Notably in the context of the foregoing, it is further apposite to observe here that it is no longer res integra that the orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature, rather, intermediate in nature 4, and are, therefore, not affected by the bar of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. (pari materia with Section 438(2) BNSS). However, the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. at a stage, when charge had Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 3 16:19:59 Juned v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC Online MP 4458; and Dilip Damor v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC Online MP 958. +0530 4 Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P., (2022) 15 SCC 720.
CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 13 of 32 been framed, is also equally settled5. In this regard, it is pertinent to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari, 2022 SCC Online SC 1057, wherein the Hon'ble Court enunciated the law in regard the foregoing as under;
"22. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.
23. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Germane for the purpose(s) of present discourse to now consider the principles governing framing of charges. In this regard, it is relevant to outrightly note the settled law 6 that at the stage of framing of charges, neither can the truth, veracity and effect of the prosecution case be meticulously7 judged, nor can any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. On Digitally signed by ABHISHEK 5 ABHISHEK GOYAL State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198. GOYAL Date: 6 2025.11.29 State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 16:20:05 7 +0530 Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460. CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 14 of 32 the contrary, at such a stage, only the sufficiency of ground for proceeding against the accused, on a general consideration of materials placed before the Court by the investigating police officer is relevant. Further, though, sifting of evidence is permissible8, however, scanning of evidence in detail is not. Quite understandably, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Reena v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC Online Del 630, iterated the said principles in unequivocal terms as under;
"12. Thus it is settled position of law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is not supposed to look into the evidence of the case in detail and is only to consider whether there is a strong suspicion against the accused on the basis of the material that comes before it. The court has the power to sift the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out, whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused. However, the Court is not supposed to delve deeply into the merits of the matter and start a roving expedition into the evidence that is brought forth it, as if conducting a trial. Further there is no one fixed definition that may be ascribed to the term prima facie' nor can the term strong suspicion have a singular meaning. While coming to the conclusion of a strong prima facie case or strong suspicion, the Court shall have to decide each case on the basis of its own independent facts and circumstances."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Concomitantly, it is settled law9 that the inconsistency in the material produced by the prosecution or the defect in investigation10, cannot be looked into for discharge of an accused, in the absence of full-fledged trial. In fact, the probative value11 of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material placed on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Reference in this regard is made to the decision Digitally signed by 8 State of Maharashta v. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 393. ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL 9 Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P., (2013) 11 SCC 476. GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 10 State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police v. N. Suresh Ranjan & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 709. 16:20:10 +0530 11 Soma Chakravarty v. State, (2007) 5 SCC 403. CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 15 of 32 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu, (2023) 6 SCC 768, wherein the Hon'ble Court remarked as under;
"59. Reiterating a similar view in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P. [Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P., (2013) 11 SCC 476 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 21] , it was observed by this Court that while framing charges the court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record to decide whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence and it is not required to evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict the accused. It was held that the court at this stage cannot speculate into the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations and contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses cannot be looked into at the stage of discharge."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Relevant to further note that it is trite law 12, at the stage of framing of charge, only the police report is required to be considered and the defence of the accused13 cannot be looked into. Needless to mention that the superior courts14 have persistently deprecated the practice of holding a mini trial at the time of framing of charge. Relevantly, in this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Parikh v. CBI, (2008) 10 SCC 109, wherein the Hon'ble Court enunciated the judicial principle(s), as under;
"19. As observed in Debendra Nath Padhi case [(2005) 1 SCC 568: 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] at the stage of framing charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible and a mini trial cannot be conducted at such stage. At the stage of framing of charge the submissions on behalf of the accused have to be 12 State Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad & Anr. v. P. Suryaprakasam, (1999) SCC (Crl.) 373 and State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568. Digitally 13 signed by State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294. ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL 14 Indu Jain v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 341. GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 16:20:15 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 16 of 32 +0530 confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. The accused will get an opportunity to prove the documents subsequently produced by the prosecution on the order of the Court, but the same cannot be relied upon to reopen the proceedings once charge has been framed or for invocation of the High Court's powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Apposite to further emphasize15 that at the stage of charge, court(s) is/are not even required to record detailed reasons for framing charge, rather16, a very strong suspicion founded upon materials placed before it, which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges. In fact17, it is only when no case is made out even after presuming entire prosecution evidence, can an accused be discharged. Needless to accentuate18, "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." Notably, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715, while inter alia illuminating the principles as well as the scope of enquiry for the purpose of charge/discharging an accused, observed as under;
"14. ...In fact, Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that "the Judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused".15
Bhawna Bai v. Dhanshyam & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 217 16 Digitally Supdt. and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, AIR 1980 SC 52 and Sajjan signed by ABHISHEK Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 ABHISHEK GOYAL 17 GOYAL Date:
Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, (2023) 7 SCC 633 2025.11.29 16:20:22 18 Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 424 +0530 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 17 of 32 The "ground" in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more need be enquired into."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Ergo, being mindful of the principles hereinunder noted, this Court would now proceed with the determination of the arguments raised by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. Markedly, one of the primary contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist is that even from the material placed on record prima facie ingredients of offence under the allegations levelled/charges framed against the revisionist are not made out. However, in order to appreciate the said contention, this Court deems it pertinent to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/IPC as under;
"319. Hurt-Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
*** *** ***
321. Voluntarily causing hurt-Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt".
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
*** *** *** Digitally
354. Assault or criminal force to woman with signed by
ABHISHEK
intent to outrage her modesty-Whoever assaults or ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
uses criminal force to any woman, intending to 2025.11.29
16:20:27
outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby +0530
CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 18 of 32
outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
*** *** *** 354-B. Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe-Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
*** *** ***
503. Criminal intimidation-Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
*** *** ***
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation- Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;...
*** *** ***
509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman-Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Notably, it is observed from a perusal of Section 323 IPC that the essence of the said offence lies in the accused's causing hurt to the victim, voluntarily , i.e., intentionally or with knowledge that in the process, hurt would be caused. Significantly, the term, hurt, in turn, is defined under Section 319 IPC as Digitally signed by ABHISHEK causation of any bodily pain, disease or infirmity to a victim. Quite ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 16:20:33 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 19 of 32 +0530 evidently, disease or infirmity may have external manifestation, however, bodily pain may not be easily perceivable from any medical report. Ergo, it is quite understandable that the superior courts have persistently avowed that in order for conviction under Section 323 IPC to stand, it is not essential for production of an injury/medical report. Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar, (2021) 9 SCC 191 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in unambiguous terms noted as under;
"11. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant-accused that all the appellants were alleged to have been armed with lathis and so far as PW 8 is concerned, no injury report is forthcoming and/or brought on record and therefore they cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that PW 8 in his examination-in-chief/deposition has specifically stated that after he sustained injuries, treatment was provided at Government Hospital, Paatan. He has further stated in the cross-examination on behalf of all the accused persons except accused Dinanath Singh that he sustained 2-3 blows of truncheons. He has also stated that he does not exactly remember that how many blows he suffered. According to him, he first went to Police Station, Paatan along with the SHO of Police Station, Paatan, where his statement was recorded and thereafter the SHO sent him to Paatan Hospital for treatment. Thus, he was attacked by the accused persons by lathis/sticks and he sustained injuries and was treated at Government Hospital, Paatan has been established and proved. It may be that there might not be any serious injuries and/or visible injuries, the hospital might not have issued the injury report. However, production of an injury report for the offence under Section 323 IPC is not a sine qua non for establishing the case for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Section 323 IPC is a punishable section for voluntarily causing hurt. "Hurt" is defined under Section 319 IPC. As per Section 319 IPC, whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause Digitally "hurt". Therefore, even causing bodily pain can be signed by ABHISHEK said to be causing "hurt". Therefore, in the facts and ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
circumstances of the case, no error has been 2025.11.29 16:20:38 +0530 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 20 of 32 committed by the courts below for convicting the accused under Section 323 IPC..."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. In so far the provisions under Section 354 IPC are concerned, it is settled law that in order to attract culpability under the said provision, it is required for the prosecution to prove; (i) commission of criminal assault or use of criminal force on a person, who is a woman; (ii) use of criminal force on such victim by the aggressor/accused; and (iii) use of criminal force upon such a woman with a mens rea (intention or knowledge) to 'outrage her modesty'. In this regard, this Court deems it apposite to refer to the decision in Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala, (2004) 1 SCC 215, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court19, while explicating the basic ingredients of Section 354 IPC, noted as under;
"9. In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of having such outrage alone for its object. There is no abstract conception of modesty that can apply to all cases. (See State of Punjab v. Major Singh [AIR 1967 SC 63 : 1967 Cri LJ 1] .) A careful approach has to be adopted by the court while dealing with a case alleging outrage of modesty. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC are as under:
(i) that the person assaulted must be a woman;
(ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on her; and
(iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty.
10. Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected. Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical Digitally objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has signed by ABHISHEK to be culled out from various circumstances in which ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 16:20:42 19 Premiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 10 SCC 81. +0530 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 21 of 32 and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed..."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Analogously, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 4 SCC 371, cogitating on the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC and the meaning of the term, 'modesty', remarked as under;
"11. Coming to the question as to whether Section 354 of the Act has any application, it is to be noted that the provision makes penal the assault or use of criminal force to a woman to outrage her modesty. The essential ingredients of offence under Section 354 IPC are:
(a) That the assault must be on a woman.
(b) That the accused must have used criminal force on her.
(c) That the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty.
12. What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in this Section is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman; and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object. As indicated above, the word 'modesty' is not defined in IPC. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (Third Edn.) defines the word 'modesty' in relation to woman as follows:
"Decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lowe; Shame-fast, Scrupulously chast."
*** *** ***
14. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language defines modesty as "freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency; a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct". In the Oxford Digitally signed by ABHISHEK English Dictionary (1933 Edn.), the meaning of the ABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL word 'modesty' is given as "womanly propriety of 2025.11.29 16:20:48 +0530 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 22 of 32 behavior; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman); reverse or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions"..."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Congruently, from a scrupulous analysis of the provisions under Section 354B IPC, it is observed that for the said provisions to be attracted, the prosecution is required to inter alia prove, commission of; (i) assault or use of criminal force by any man on any woman or abetment of such act; and (ii) such accused's mens rea, i.e., the intention of disrobing or compelling the woman to be naked. Clearly, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354B IPC is assaulting and/or using criminal force against the victim/complainant, "with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked". Apposite to further note at this stage that in order to bring home the charges/conviction under Section 354B IPC, it is irrelevant whether or not the accused was successful in disrobing a woman, mere use of criminal force with an intent to disrobe by the accused is sufficient. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Gobinda Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal, C.R.A. No. 152 of 2018, dated 09.02.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under;
"...Careful reading of Section 354B suggests that even if an accused does not have any intention to commit rape, he may be held guilty for committing the offence of disrobing a woman. Even in Section 354B it is not required for the prosecution to prove that the victim was actually disrobed used of criminal force with the intent to disrobe by the accused is sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 354B of the Indian Penal Code..."
(Emphasis supplied) Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29
16:20:53
+0530
CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 23 of 32
20. Correspondingly, for bringing home charges under Section 506 of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the; (i) accused threatened some person; (ii) such threat must extend to causing any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested; and (iii) the accused did so with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat. Pertinently, the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Amulya Kumar Behera v. Nabaghana Behera, 1995 SCC Online Ori 317, while explicating the meaning of the word, 'alarm' used under Section 503/506 IPC, noted as under;
"...The threat must be intended to cause alarm from which it follows that, ordinarily, it would be sufficient for that purpose. The degree of such alarm may very in different cases, but the essential matter is that it is of a nature and extent to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates and take away from his acts that element of free voluntary action which alone constitutes consent. The case where the threat produces an alarm is comparatively a simple one, for all that has then to be proved is that threat was given and that the alarm was due to the threat: but where the threat has not that effect, it involves a question whether it was sufficient to overcome a man of ordinary nerves. The Court may hold it to be an empty boast, too insignificant to call for penal visitation of Section 506. "Intimidate" according to Webstar's Dictionary means" (1) to make timid, make afraid, overawe; (2) force or deter with threats or violence, cow". Threat referred to in the Section must be a threat communicated or uttered with intention of its being communicated to the person threatened for the purpose of influencing his mind. Question whether threat amounts to a criminal intimidation or not does not depend on norms of individual threatened if it is such a threat as may overcome ordinary free will of a Digitally signed by man of common firmness. "Threat" is derived from ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Anglo-sexam word "threotou to life", (harass). It is GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 the dicleration of an intention to inflict punishment, 16:21:01 +0530 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 24 of 32 loss or pain on another. "Injury" is defined in Section
44. It involves doing of an illegal act. If it is made with intention mentioned in the section, it is an offence.
Whether threat was given with intention to cause alarm to the person threatened has to be established by evidence to be brought on record..."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Significantly, in the aforenoted dictate, the Hon'ble Court explicitly observed that the mens rea/ intention envisaged under Section 503/506 IPC must be to cause alarm to the victim and whether or not such a victim is alarmed, is not of any consequence. Here, it is further apposite to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while dealing with the ingredients of offence under Section(s) 503/506 IPC, inter alia, observed as under;
"11. ...A reading of the definition of "criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Pertinent to further note that the essential ingredients of Section 509 IPC are; (i) intention on the part of an accused to insult the modesty of a woman; and that the (ii) insult must be caused by; (a) uttering any words, or making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that the gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or (b) by intruding upon the privacy of such a woman.
Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Varun Bhatia v. Digitally
signed by
State & Ors., MANU/DE/5747/2023, wherein the Hon'ble High ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 25 of 32 2025.11.29
16:21:06
+0530
Court of Delhi, while explicating the contours of the provisions under Section 509/354 IPC, noted as under;
"18. Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code delineates two pivotal components for establishing an offence: firstly, the presence of an intention to insult the modesty of a woman, and secondly, the manner in which this insult is perpetrated. The cornerstone of this provision is the requirement of intent, where the accused must possess a deliberate intention to affront or insult the modesty of a woman. This intent sets apart ordinary speech or actions from those that amount to an offence under Section 509. The insult itself can take place through two distinct modes. It can occur verbally or visually by uttering specific words, making sounds, or displaying gestures or objects, with the deliberate intent that these words, sounds, gestures, or objects are heard or seen by the woman involved. Alternatively, insult can manifest as an intrusion upon the woman's privacy, meaning thereby encroaching upon her personal space or violating her sense of privacy intentionally, in a manner that affronts her modesty. In essence, Section 509 emphasizes that intent is the linchpin of this offence, necessitating a deliberate affront to a woman's modesty for the Section to be invoked.
*** *** ***
21. In essence, both Section 354 and Section 509 of Indian Penal Code addressed the issue of outraging the modesty of a woman, but they do so in distinct ways. Section 354 primarily deals with cases involving physical assault or the use of force against a woman, wherein her modesty is violated through actions that involve direct contact or physical harm. On the other hand, Section 509 concerns instances where words, gestures, or acts are employed with the deliberate intent to insult or offend a woman's modesty, without necessarily involving physical force. This distinction in legal provisions reflects the recognition that outraging a woman's modesty can take various forms, both physical and verbal, and the law seeks to address each of these forms distinctly to ensure justice and protection for women in different situations. In the present case, the complainant has raised allegations solely under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused."
(Emphasis supplied) Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29
16:21:10
+0530
CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 26 of 32
23. Consequently, being mindful of the above, when facts of the present case are conscientiously evaluated, in light of aforenoted judicial precedents as well as the arguments addressed, it is outrightly observed that the complainant has made/levelled specific allegations against the revisionist pertaining to the revisionist's reaching near complainant's son on 24.03.2022 at around 06:45 p.m., shoving him, threatening to kill him, of the revisionist's slapping the complainant's son as well as of the revisionist's abusing the complainant's son. Correspondingly, it is specifically averred by the complainant that when she intervened, the revisionist is asserted to have grabbed and pulled complainant's hair and told her, "...tumhare pure pariwaar ko hi khatam karna padega..." (that the revisionist would have to kill all the family members of the complainant's family). The complainant further avowed under her complaint that she pushed the revisionist in order to save herself, however, the revisionist pulled her suit, while grabbing the same from neck; clutched and threw her chunni at some distance, while also abusing her, intimidating the complainant to take back her case, failing which, she was threatened that dire consequences would ensue (मैं ने खुद को बचाने के लिए चन्दर प्रकाश को धक्का मारा तो उसने मेरे सूट को गले से पकड़ कर खींच दिया और मेरी चुन्नी पकड़ कर फै क दी। और मुझे थप्पड़ मारा चन्दर प्रकाश व बिल्लू ने मुझे बहु त गाली गलौच की और मुझे कहा कि तुम अपना के स वापिस ले लो। वरना अजाम बहु त बुरा होगा।). Needless to mention, that the factum of the revisionist's threatening and slapping the complainant' son; of the revisionist's slapping the complainant as she tried to intervene; of him/the revisionist's pulling the complainant's hair, grabbing and throwing of the complainant's chunni, abusing her in indecent language, as well as of the revisionist's threatening the Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 27 of 32 2025.11.29 16:21:15 +0530 complainant to take back/withdraw her complaint, also find mention under the statement of the complainant, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, under such circumstances, this Court is in concurrence with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that prima facie case, strong suspicion and sufficient material/ground(s) to proceed with the charges under Sections 323, 354, 354B20, 506 and 509 IPC are made out against the revisionist herein.
24. Here, it is pertinent to deal with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist inter alia to the effect that there are variations and/or contradictions in the statements of the complainant recorded at different points in time , i.e., in her complaint, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her statement record under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, as aforenoted, such contradictions/inconsistencies, in the considered opinion of this Court, are not sufficient enough for discharge of an accused/revisionist herein at this stage, as aforenoted, the superior courts have persistently avowed that contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses cannot be looked into at the stage of charge/discharge. In as much as the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist pertaining to the Ld. Trial Court's not considering the age of the revisionist, making it (allegedly) impossible for him to commit the offence or that of false implication of the revisionist in the present case by the revisionist or that of non-joining of complainant's son as one of the prosecution witnesses or that of the alleged inconsistency in the MLC and the statement of the complainant are concerned, this Digitally 20 Reference also made to Section 71 IPC and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in T. Manikadan v. signed by ABHISHEK State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6440, wherein the Hon'ble Court held that conviction can be ABHISHEK GOYAL simultaneously maintained under Section 354 and 354A IPC. Similar analogy would apply to the present case as GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 well. 16:21:20 +0530 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 28 of 32 Court is in concurrence with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the same are all subject matters of trial, to be determined only once evidence is led before the Ld. Trial Court. Needless in this regard to reiterate, in light of the aforenoted judicial dictate, for the offence under Section 323 IPC to stand, there is no requirement of any medical report, i.e., production of an injury report for the offence under Section 323 IPC is not a sine qua non. Correspondingly, as aforenoted, mere defect in investigation cannot also be a ground for discharge. Congruently, this Court does not find credence in the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist pertaining to alleged delay in registration of FIR or non-joining of public witnesses or that of non-retrieval of alleged CCTV footage by the investigating officer, be a ground for discharge. In fact, in this regard, this Court unambiguously records that the effect of such factors can only be determined during the course of trial in the instant case. Nonetheless, in this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to note here that considering the nature of charges/offences/allegation levelled/charged against an accused, it is not necessary that public persons are always joined as witnesses. In fact, it is a settled law21 that conviction for an offence of sexual nature/one affecting modesty of woman, can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Clearly, such factor, i.e., absence of public witnesses or even pertaining to the alleged delay in the registration of FIR can be scrupulously considered only once evidence is adduced during trial, in tandem with the facts and circumstances brought forth and cannot be determined, in detail at the present stage. Further, this Court is also not convinced with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that since the Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL 21 State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384; and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pratap Singh, 2016 SCC Online GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 Del 3207. 16:21:25 +0530 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 29 of 32 material placed on record is insufficient to convict the revisionist, he ought to be discharged. In fact, in this regard, it is reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge, 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, which is not the case here.
25. Consequently, in conspectus of above, further being wary of the aforenoted judicial principles, in light of the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, this Court observes that from the facts and circumstances of the case, material and the documents placed on record of the Ld. Trial Court, including inter alia the contents of the chargesheet, statements of witnesses, including that of the complainant, MLC and other documents placed on record, prima facie case under Section 323/354/354B/506/509 IPC stands established against revisionist in as much as the revisionist on 24.03.2022 at around 06:45 p.m., the revisionist reached near the complainant's son, shoved him, threatened to kill him, slapped the complainant's son as well as abused him/complainant's son.
Correspondingly, it is specifically averred by the complainant that when she intervened, the revisionist grabbed and pulled her hair and told her, "...tumhare pure pariwaar ko hi khatam karna padega..." (that the revisionist would have to kill all the family members of the complainant's family). The complainant further avowed under her complaint that she pushed the revisionist in order to save herself, however, the revisionist pulled her suit, while grabbing the same from neck; clutched and threw her chunni at some distance, while also abusing her, intimidating the Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 30 of 32 16:21:31 +0530 complainant to take back her case, failing which, she was threatened that dire consequences would ensue ( मैं ने खुद को बचाने के लिए चन्दर प्रकाश को धक्का मारा तो उसने मेरे सूट को गले से पकड़ कर खींच दिया और मेरी चुन्नी पकड़ कर फै क दी। और मुझे थप्पड़ मारा चन्दर प्रकाश व बिल्लू ने मुझे बहु त गाली गलौच की और मुझे कहा कि तुम अपना के स वापिस ले लो। वरना अजाम बहु त बुरा होगा।).
26. Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court unwaveringly records and reiterates that the Ld. Trial Court did not commit any illegality and/or impropriety under the impugned order, while directing framing of charges under Sections 323/354/354B/506/509 IPC against the revisionist.
Consequently, in the considered opinion of this Court the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. As a corollary, order dated 09.09.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC (Mahila Court)-04, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case bearing, 'State v. Chander Parkash, Cr. Case No. 10872/2022' , arising out of FIR No. 203/2022, PS. Prasad Nagar, directing framing of charges under Sections 323/354/354B/506/509 IPC against the revisionist/petitioner herein is hereby upheld/affirmed. Apposite at this stage for this Court to further note that, though, it/this Court holds highest regard for the decisions relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, however, the same would not, in the considered opinion of this Court, come to the aid/rescue of the case put forth by the revisionist in the manner as prayed for, as the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the stage of proceedings before this Court, are clearly, distinguishable. Needless at this stage to note that nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as opinion on final outcome of the case and the same shall be decided in accordance with law upon conclusion of Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 31 of 32 2025.11.29 16:21:37 +0530 evidence.
27. Trial Court Record along with a copy of this order/judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court concerned for information and compliance.
28. Revision file be consigned to record room after due Digitally compliance. signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.29 16:21:42 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal) on 29.11.2025 ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR. No. 549/2024 Chander Prakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page No. 32 of 32