Delhi District Court
Cr No. 61/14 "Vipin Sharma & Ors. vs . State" on 3 November, 2014
CR No. 61/14 "Vipin Sharma & Ors. Vs. State"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN, ASJ-04
SOUTH WEST, DWARKA ,NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.61/14
In the matter of:
1. Vipin Sharma
S/o Sh. Veer Sahay
2. Indresh
W/o Sh. Vipin Sharma
Both R/o C-140, Vishwas
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110060.
3. Kusum Sharma
W/o Sh. Kanti Prasad Sharma
R/o C-123, Vishwas Park,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110060.
4. Pushpa
W/o Sh. Mukut Lal Sharma
R/o C-140, Vishwas Park,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110060. ... Revisionists
Versus
State of Delhi ... Respondent
Date of institution of Revision : 29.05.2014
Date on which judgment reserved : 17.10.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced : 03.11.2014
Criminal Revision Page 1 of 9
CR No. 61/14 "Vipin Sharma & Ors. Vs. State"
ORDER
1. By present order I will dispose off the Criminal Revision Petition filed U/s 399/400 Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated 01.03.2014 of passing an order of framing of charge U/s 341/506/509/34 IPC against the revisionist no. 2, 3 and 4 and the charge for the offence punishable U/s 451/511/509 IPC against the revisionist no.1 in the case FIR no. 417/13 PS Bindapur.
2. The FIR in question is arising out of the complaint made by the Ms. Babli Pandey, thereby, stating that the revisionists no. 2, 3 & 4 prevented her on a way when she was coming from her work and abuse her and extended threat and then she told the revisionists no. 2 to 4 that they are mentally harassing her since three months and if she would take any wrong step then revisionist no. 2 to 4 would be in trouble. Thereafter, the complainant came back to her house and at that time the revisionist no.1 Vipin along with Kartik and Bharat (juvenile) abusing the complainant came at the gate of her house and then the revisionist no. 1 tried to enter the house and stated that "Mai tujhe kahi muh dikhane ke layak nahi rakhuga" and kartik stated to revisionist no.1 to drag the complainant out and the complainant pushed Kartik out side and bolted the gate and in this process the hand of the complainant got injured. Criminal Revision Page 2 of 9
CR No. 61/14 "Vipin Sharma & Ors. Vs. State"
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint the police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the revisionist disclosing the offence punishable U/s 341/506/509/451/511 IPC. Vide impugned order dated 01.03.2014 the charge for the offence U/s 341/506/509/34 IPC was framed against the revisionist no. 2 to 4 and the charge for the offence punishable U/s 451/511/509 IPC was framed against the revisionist no.1.
4. The order of framing of charge has been assailed by the revisionist on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court erred in not correctly appreciating the facts of the case and evidence on record collected by the investigation officer for the purpose of passing an order for framing of the notice under sections 451/511/509 IPC against the revisionist no.1 and under sections 341/506/509/34 IPC against the revisionists no.2 to 4 for their trial. There is allegation for causing an alarm to the complainant in the charge sheet.
5. I have heard the Ld Counsel for the revisionists and the complainant in person. I have perused the Trial Court record. Criminal Revision Page 3 of 9
CR No. 61/14 "Vipin Sharma & Ors. Vs. State"
Charge Against Revisionists Kusum, Pushpa & Parmeshwari
6. The Ld Trial Court has framed the charges against the revisionists Kusum, Pushpa & Parmeshwari for the offence punishable under section 341/506/509/34 IPC. Let us consider the case of the prosecution against them.
7. In her complaint, complainant Babli Pandey has alleged against the revisionists Kusum, Pushpa & Parmeshwari that they stopped the complainant on her way and started to abuse and threaten her. The complainant told them that the revisionists are harassing her for three months and in case the complainant takes any wrong step then the revisionists would land in trouble and thereafter the complainant came back to her house. Charge for the Offense 341 IPC:
8. "Wrongful restraint" has been defined under Section 339 IPC in the following words:
"339.Wrongful restraint.--Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. Exception.--The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section."
The essential ingredients of the aforementioned provision are:
(1) Accused obstructs voluntarily;
(2) The victim is prevented from proceeding in any direction; (3) Such victim has every right to proceed in that direction.Criminal Revision Page 4 of 9
CR No. 61/14 "Vipin Sharma & Ors. Vs. State"
9. In Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom Irani, (2009) 6 SCC 475 at page 479 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
14. The word "voluntary" is significant. It connotes that obstruction should be direct. The obstructions must be a restriction on the normal movement of a person. It should be a physical one. They should have common intention to cause obstruction.
10. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid case, the obstruction caused to the victim should be physical and intended. Nowhere, the complainant has alleged that the revisionists physically prevented her way and she was prevented from proceeding in any direction rather the complainant herself has stated that she replied to the abuses of the revisionists by stating that if the complainant takes any wrong step then the revisionists would land in trouble. Thus, the allegations made by the complainant against the revisionists does not amount to the commission of the offence by the revisionists punishable under section 341 IPC. Therefore, in these facts the charge for the offence u/s 341 IPC was not liable to be framed against the revisionists.
Charge for the Offense 506 IPC:
11. Ingredients of offence of "criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC and punishable under Section 506 IPC are as under:-Criminal Revision Page 5 of 9
CR No. 61/14 "Vipin Sharma & Ors. Vs. State"
1. Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or (ii )to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
2. Threatening a person with injury.
(a) to cause alarm to that person, or
(b) to cause the person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, or
(c) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do so as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
12. In Kanshi Ram Vs State, 86 (2000) DLT 609, Hon'ble High Court has held that:
.........10. So far as the offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, the complainant Isran Ahmed stated in his case diary statement that at the relevant time the petitioner had exhorted his security personnel to thrash the journalists. According to Isran Ahmed, the exact words used by the petitioner were "Maro Salon Ko".Strangely enough, Isran Ahmed has nowhere stated in his statement that the alleged threat had caused an alarm to him. On the contrary the circumstances of the case clearly go to show that even after the alleged threat, the complainant or other media persons did not retrace their steps. It is well settled that more threat is no offence. That being so the threat alleged to have been given by the petitioner does not fall within the mischief of Section 506 IPC. Consequently, no charge under Section 506 IPC can be framed against the petitioner on the basis of the said evidence.
13. The ratio of the aforesaid case applies to the present case as well. The complainant nowhere stated that what kinds of threats were extended by the revisionists to her nor that the threats caused alarm on her. Rather, the statement of the complainant reflects that she herself extended threat to the Criminal Revision Page 6 of 9 CR No. 61/14 "Vipin Sharma & Ors. Vs. State"
revisionists by stating that if she takes any wrong step then the revisionists would land in trouble. Thus, no charge under Section 506 IPC can be framed against the revisionists on the basis of the said evidence.
Charge for the Offense 509 IPC:
14. Section 509 IPC lays down: 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 one year, or with fine, or with both.
15. The statement of the complainant does not reflects any word uttered by the revisionists or gesture made by them or any action on their part to insult the modesty of the complainant. Thus, no charge under Section 506 IPC can be framed against the revisionists on the basis of the said evidence.
16. In the light of aforesaid discussions, it is held that the Ld Trial Court committed material irregularity in framing the charge against the revisionists for the offence punishable under section 341/506/509 IPC. The revisionists are entitled to be discharged in the present case. Criminal Revision Page 7 of 9
CR No. 61/14 "Vipin Sharma & Ors. Vs. State"
Charge Against Revisionist Vipin
17. ld. Trial Court has framed the charges against the revisionist Vipin for the offence punishable under section 451/511/509 IPC. Let us consider the case of the prosecution against him.
18. In her complaint, complainant Babli Pandey has alleged against the revisionist Vipin that he along with Kartik and Bharat (juveniles) abusing the complainant came at the gate of her house and then the revisionist no.1 tried to enter the house and stated that "Mai tujhe kahi muh dikhane ke layak nahi rakhuga". Kartik stated to revisionist no.1 to drag the complainant out but the complainant pushed Kartik out side and bolted the gate. In this process the hand of the complainant got injured.
19. The complainant has specifically alleged that the revisionist no.1 tried to enter her house and stated that "Mai tujhe kahi muh dikhane ke layak nahi rakhuga". The act of the revisionist as stated by the complainant prima facie suggests that he did try to enter the house of the complainant and uttered words intending to insult the modesty of the complainant. Thus, the Ld Trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the revisionist no.1 for the offence punishable under section 451/511/509 IPC.
Criminal Revision Page 8 of 9
CR No. 61/14 "Vipin Sharma & Ors. Vs. State"
Conclusion:
20. In the light of above noted discussions, the impugned order of framing the charge against the revisionists 2,3 & 4 is set-aside and they are ordered to be discharged for the offence punishable under section 341/506/509 IPC. The order of framing the charge against the revisionist no.1 for the offence punishable under section 451/511/509 IPC is upheld. The revision petition stands disposed off on aforesaid terms. TCR be sent back along with the copy of the order.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 3rd November 2014.
(Gautam Manan)
ASJ-04/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
Criminal Revision Page 9 of 9
CR No. 61/14 "Vipin Sharma & Ors. Vs. State"
03.11.2014
Present: None
Vide separate orders of even date, the impugned order of
framing the charge against the revisionists 2,3 & 4 is set-aside and they are ordered to be discharged for the offence punishable under section 341/506/509 IPC. The order of framing the charge against the revisionist no.1 for the offence punishable under section 451/511/509 IPC is upheld. The revision petition stands disposed off on aforesaid terms.
TCR be sent back along with the copy of the order.
File be consigned to record room.
(Gautam Manan) ASJ-04/Dwarka Courts New Delhi/03.11.2014 Criminal Revision Page 10 of 9