Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh Dhawan on 11 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
& SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 161 of 2015
ID No. 02406R0144192015
State
Through Ld. Public Prosecutor ........ Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Dhawan,
S/o Sh. M. L. Dhawan,
R/o 218, Kailash Hill,
New Delhi ........ Respondent
Instituted on : 01.05.2015
Argued on : 11.03.2016
Decided on : 11.03.2016
O R D E R
1 Feeling aggrieved from the impugned order dated 25.02.2015 passed by the court of Ms. Archana Beniwal, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate08 (SouthEast District), New Delhi, in case FIR No. 04/2014, U/s 509 IPC, PS Amar Colony titled as "State v. Rakesh Dhawan", whereby the Ld. MM was pleased to discharge the Respondent from the allegations for commission of an offence as aforesaid, the State acting through Ld. Public Prosecutor had filed the present revision petition, challenging the impugned order on the following amongst other grounds: That the Ld. MM had failed to appreciate the literal and actual meaning of words uttered by the Respondent in the given facts and circumstances of the present case and had further erred in not charging the accused with the offence u/s 504 IPC because for attracting the said provision, the place of offence was not necessarily required to be a public place.
State Vs. Rakesh Dhawan - CR No. 161 of 2015 1/5
Further the Ld. MM had also failed to appreciate the crux of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967, SC 631, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had defined the term "modesty" in relation to a woman and further the Ld. MM had failed to appreciate the ratio of the case "MM Haries v. State of Kerala" and therefore the Ld. MM had grossly erred in misinterpreting the term "bloody bitch" allegedly used by the respondent in relation to the complainant and therefore, it has been prayed that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the respondent was liable to be charged for the offences under sections 504/507/509 IPC.
2 Brief facts that had given rise to filing of the present appeal are succinctly given as under: As per the case of the prosecution, respondent Rakesh Dhawan and his sisterinlaw ( wife of his younger brother) were stated to be running their respective businesses from the basement of property no. 218, Kailash Hills and the staff employed by her sisterinlaw used to use the portion of the property under his occupation and possession for their way to toilets situated on the ground floor which portion was exclusively in possession and control of the respondent as he was residing there. However, after sometime, respondent had changed the set up of his office and thereby blocked the said way due to which the acess to toilet for employees of her sisterinlaw was completely blocked.
It is further the case of the prosecution that on 31.12.2013 when at around 12.45 PM the complainant, who was working as Computer Programmer with the sisterinlaw of the respondent, alongwith her other staff members had gone to the respondent to request him to permit them the user of the toilet under State Vs. Rakesh Dhawan - CR No. 161 of 2015 2/5 his possession and occupation then the respondent had allegedly abused her and had asked her to get out of his premises and to urinate on the road and also addressed her with the words "bloody bitch and stupid woman". 3 Feeling aggrieved from the said words uttered and addressed by the respondent, the complainant had filed a complaint with SHO PS Amar Colony upon which present case vide FIR No. 4/2014 under section 509 IPC was registered against him.
4 However, vide the impugned order, the Ld. MM was pleased to discharge the respondent holding that there was no use of any word, which could have attacked upon the modesty of the complainant.
5 Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition has been preferred by the State.
6 I have heard Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the petitioner/State as well as Sh. Arun Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the respondent and I have also gone through the reliance placed by both the parties on record. 7 It was held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case titled "Basheer & Arn v. State of Kerala", Crl. MC No. 837/2010 decided on 26.3.2014, as under:
"...that mere insult or insulting words, or abuse will not attract a prosecution under section 509 IPC. In this case there is absolutely nothing in the complaint preferred by the second respondent, or in the final report submitted by the police to indicate that the petitioners had in any manner insulted her modesty or intruded into her privacy. Merely insulting a woman is different from insulting the modesty of woman. The subject of insult for a State Vs. Rakesh Dhawan - CR No. 161 of 2015 3/5 prosecution under section 509 IPC must be the modesty of woman and not the woman as such. When there is nothing to make out the essential elements of the offence under section 509 IPC, the prosecution against the petitioners cannot proceed under the law."
(Para 3 of the orderemphasis supplied.) 8 I find myself in complete agreement with the aforesaid ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court that any words or gestures in question must have a direct bearing or nexus with the modesty of woman rather than the woman herself and therefore mere use of words which are otherwise not going to have any bearing on the modesty, the provisions of section 509 IPC shall not get attracted.
9 Further it is noticed that as per the allegations of the complainant, she was accompanied by other staff members of the same office including some female staff members as well which fact is reflected from her allegations in the FIR where she had alleged that respondent had instructed his guard to push the ladies out side his office.
However, perusal of the record reveals that besides one Ashutosh Kumar, no other employee including any female employee has been examined by the IO in this case which fact also casted a serious shadow of doubt on authenticity of the prosecution story.
10 So far as the offence under section 504 IPC is concerned, I have no hesitation in holding that if the prosecution indicates to charge the respondent for this offence, then, also I am sure that the respondent deserved to be discharged for this offence as well. Rather it should be the complainant who should have been charged with the said offence because it was the complainant who had visited the State Vs. Rakesh Dhawan - CR No. 161 of 2015 4/5 respondent's premises and not viceversa and that visit was also without any provocation or instigation on the part of the respondent. Admittedly, the portion in which the toilet was situated, was falling within the exclusive possession and control of the respondent with respect of which he had also obtained a restraint order from the Hon'ble High Court in a civil suit and therefore, he had got all the rights and powers to prevent any trespass in his property and for any such act of prevention on his part, he could not be termed as an offender. 11 The reasonings given by the Ld. MM in her impugned order appeals to a prudent mind and therefore does not call for any interference of this court in the exercise of its revisional powers and jurisdiction as no illegality or infirmity has been observed in the impugned order.
12 Accordingly the revision petition, as filed, is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
13 Bail bond and surety bond furnished by the appellant stands cancelled and discharged.
14 TCR, if any, be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith copy of this order for necessary compliance and record.
15 Revision petition be consigned to record room after completion of all other necessary formalities in this regard.
announced in the
open court on (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
11th March, 2016 Additional Sessions Judge04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)
South East, New Delhi
State Vs. Rakesh Dhawan - CR No. 161 of 2015 5/5