Delhi District Court
State ( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Jagat Singh on 4 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
IN RE: Criminal Revision No.204644/16
ID : DLSE010034462016
State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
...... Revisionist.
Through: Sh. M. Zafar Khan,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
versus
Jagat Singh
S/o Shri Attar Singh
R/o Jhuggi No.S265/422, Pahari No.1
IG Camp, Taimur Nagar,
New Delhi
. . . . Respondent
Through: Shri Zeeshan Iskandari Advocate __________________________________________________________ Date of Institution : 30.05.2016 Date when arguments were heard : 04.10.2016 Date of Judgment : 04.10.2016 JUDGMENT :
1. The present revision petition filed under section 397/399 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") seeks to challenge the correctness, propriety and legality of order dated 11.04.2016 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (in short CR No.204644/16 1 of 5 "MM")01, Mahila Court, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in case FIR No.406/2015 Police Station New Friends Colony titled as State Vs. Jagat Singh & Ors.
2. The complainants gave written complaint dated 11.08.15 to Commissioner of Police, Delhi on the basis of which, FIR No.406/15 under section 451/354/509/506/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") was registered at Police Station New Friends Colony. Matter was investigated as per law. Respondent Jagat Singh alongwith Smt. Bala, Indu, Vikas and Sushil were found involved in the commission of offence in the case. Therefore, they were charge sheeted to face trial. Sufficient material was not found against Smt. Krishna and Smt. Raj Kumari. Hence, they were not forwarded to face trial in the case.
3. Vide order dated 11.04.16, prima facie sufficient material was found to frame charge against respondent Jagat Singh, Vikas and Sushil for commission of offence under section 354/354B/451/506/ 509/34 IPC. Material was also found to frame charge against accused Smt. Bala and Smt. Indu for offence under section 451/506/34 IPC. Therefore, charge for the aforesaid offences was framed against them. Sufficient material was not found to frame charge for offences under section 354/354B/509/34 IPC against Smt. Bala and Ms. Indu. Therefore, they were discharged for the said offences.
4. Revisionist, feeling aggrieved by impugned order dated 11.04.16 qua discharge of accused Smt. Bala and Smt. Indu for offence under section 354/354B/509/34 IPC, has preferred the present petition.
5. On notice of the petition, respondent appeared through his CR No.204644/16 2 of 5 counsel to contest the petition. No formal reply to the petition of revisionist was filed on behalf of respondent.
6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned counsel for revisionist, Shri Zeeshan Iskandari, learned counsel for respondent and perused the record of the case.
7. Admittedly, revisionist has not challenged the order dated 11.04.16 passed by learned MM qua the respondent. The revisionist does not have any grievance qua respondent so far as impugned order is concerned. The persons, who were necessary party in the case to decide the petition i.e. Smt. Bala and Ms. Indu have not been impleaded as a party in this case. Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C. provides that no order shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. The affected parties namely Smt. Bala and Smt. Indu have not been impleaded as a party in the case and they were necessary party. Therefore, no adverse order could be passed against them in the present petition.
8. Now, coming to the merits of the case. As per case of prosecution, on 05.08.15 at S265/480, IG Camp, Pahari No.1, Taimoor Nagar, NFC, New Delhi, respondent Jagat Singh, Vikas, Indu, Bala and Sushil entered in the house of complainant. Thereafter, they misbehaved with her and her nanad. She also alleged that they outraged her modesty. She further alleged that the accused persons beat the husbands of both the victims. They are further alleged to have torn the clothes / suit of complainant and in the end, they gave threat CR No.204644/16 3 of 5 to them.
9. Section 354B IPC is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "354B. 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."
10. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision shows that the offence under section 354B IPC can be committed only by a man and not by a woman. Thus, learned MM has rightly discharged Smt. Bala and Ms. Indu for offence under section 354B IPC.
11. Neither in the initial complaint given by complainants to the police nor in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, there is any allegation for outraging the modesty of the victims by Smt. Bala and Ms. Indu. There is also no allegation against them that they intruded upon the privacy of the victims or they uttered any words, made any sound or gesture or exhibited any object with intention that such word or sound was to be heard or such gesture or object was to be seen by the victims. The statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. carries much more weightage and credence than the statement recorded by police under section 161 Cr.P.C.
12. On careful consideration of entire material on record including CR No.204644/16 4 of 5 the complaint and statement of victims recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, learned trial court has rightly discharged Smt. Bala and Ms. Indu for offences punishable under section 354/354B/509/34 IPC. I do not find any patent error or illegality in the order of discharge of Smt. Bala and Ms. Indu for the aforesaid offences.
13. For the reasons discussed above, no merit is found in the petition preferred by revisionist. Same deserves to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.
14. A true copy of judgment along with TCR be sent back to learned trial court concerned. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
court today i.e. 04.10.2016 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No.204644/16 5 of 5