Delhi District Court
State vs Satya Prakash on 27 March, 2026
DLND010118902025 Page 1 of 13
Cr Rev
The State of NCT of Delhi
Vs.
Satya Prakash
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 01/2026
In the matter of :-
The State of NCT of Delhi
Through Additional Public Prosecutor
.....Revisionist
(represented by Ld. Addl. PP Sh. Mukul Kumar)
Versus
Satya Prakash
S/o Sh. Yogesh Yadav
R/o A-95, Joshi Colony
I.P. Ext. Patparganj,
New Delhi.
....Respondent
(represented by Ld. Counsel Sh. Utkarsh Singh and Sh. Sushil Kumar)
Criminal Revision Under Section 438 BNSS
Date of institution : 05.01.2026
Date when judgment reserved : 19.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 27.03.2026
DLND010118902025 Page 2 of 13
Cr Rev
The State of NCT of Delhi
Vs.
Satya Prakash
JUDGMENT
1. INTRODUCTION
(a) The present revision petition raises a question that, though frequently traversed in courts of this country, remains deceptively simple in its formulation yet profoundly consequential in its application: what separates a case worthy of trial from one where criminal process ought not to be set in motion at all?
(b) The State of NCT of Delhi, aggrieved by the order of discharge passed by the Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to the erstwhile Section 397 Cr.P.C. The core issue is whether a verbal altercation and physical jostling at a late-night eatery
-- Jain Chawal, Connaught Place -- arising from a dispute over a shared food table, can, on the material placed before the court, constitute the offences under Section 354A (sexual harassment) and Section 509 IPC (insult to modesty of a woman) so as to warrant the framing of charges against the respondent-accused, Satya Prakash.
(c) For reasons elaborated hereinafter, this Court holds that the Ld. Trial Court committed no illegality, much less any patent illegality, in discharging the accused, and the impugned order deserves to be upheld.
DLND010118902025 Page 3 of 13Cr Rev The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Satya Prakash
2. THE IMPUGNED ORDER -- RELEVANT PORTIONS
(a) The impugned order dated 26.09.2025 was passed by the Ld. Court of Ms. Kavita Bist, JMFC, Mahila Court-01, Patiala House Courts, in Cr. Case No. 11129/2022 (State vs. Satya Prakash, FIR No. 50/2021). The relevant and operative portions of the impugned order are reproduced hereunder:
"7. Perusal of the record reflects that the complaint was filed by the complainant on 24.03.2021 wherein, she has stated that the accused has abused her and her husband at: Jain Chawal Connaught Place on 24.03.2021 at around 12:15-12:40 A.M and has also pushed her with wrong intention. She has further elaborated the said incident during her statement recorded u/S 164 Cr.P.C wherein, she has stated that the accused along with his friend was present at the alleged spot and he was smoking and instructed his friend to keep the food on their table where she along with her husband and sister were already having food and accused instructed his friend despite the fact that there was no place to keep any further item and after that her husband tried to make them understand and requested them to have food somewhere else, however, both of them refused for the same and started abusing her husband and also started fighting and after that she pushed both of them, however, they did not move from there place and after that the accused pushed her back by holding her jacket and started talking to her in abusive language. She has also stated that both of them were intoxicated and could not stand properly as well.
8. Perusal of statement of sister of complainant reveals that she along with complainant and her brother in law (Jeeja) went to Jain Chawal on 24.03.2021 at around 12:40 a.m. and the accused was smoking cigarette near their table and when she and the complainant objected him to keep his food plate on their table, then he started staring the complainant and pushed her with wrong intention and he was also intoxicated at that time and he was also hurling abuses to her and the complainant and the husband of the complainant has also stated that the accused abused him and the complainant and he also pushed the complainant with wrong intention.
9. As far as, Section 354A (1)(i) IPC is concerned, it states that a man shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment if he commits physical DLND010118902025 Page 4 of 13 Cr Rev The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Satya Prakash contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures which is apparently missing in the present matter as the complainant has stated in her complaint that the accused pushed her with wrong intention without any specification, however, she elaborated the said aspect in her statement recorded in S 164 Cr.P.C. wherein, she has stated that firstly, she pushed the accused and after that accused pushed her back by holding her jacket and evidently what transpires that there was some dispute on the issue of sharing food table at: Jain Chawal i.e the alleged place of incident and there was altercation as well as action from both sides and it can neither be assumed that the said push was for physical contact and advancement involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures nor it can be assumed that it was a criminal force with intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant and a simple push does not fall within the purview of Section 323 IPC either as it has not caused bodily pain, disease or any infirmity to the complainant.
10. As far as Section 509 IPC is concerned, it is important to draw attention on the judgment of Madhushree Datta Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. [2025] 2 S.C.R. 187, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
27. The conclusion that emerges from the above discussion is that it will be essential for this Court to carefully assess the evidence presented, in order to determine whether there is sufficient material to establish the intention and knowledge on the part of the appellants, to insult the modesty of the complainant or, to put it pithily, whether any act was intended to shock the sense of decency of the complainant being a woman.
28. The term "filthy language," when examined in isolation, and without any contextual framework or accompanying words, indicating an intent to insult the complainant's modesty, does not fall within the purview of Section 509 of the IPC. Had there been references to specific words used, contextual details, or any gestures-whether preceding, succeeding, or accompanying these words-that could demonstrate a criminal intent to insult the modesty, and it might have assisted the prosecution in establishing the case against the appellants.
In view of the of the above-said judgment and considering the over all circumstances of the present case and also considering the failure of complainant to disclose the specific words used by the accused, the court is of considered view that merely on the allegation of abuses without DLND010118902025 Page 5 of 13 Cr Rev The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Satya Prakash specifying the same, prima facie offence u/s 509 IPC can not be made out against the accused.
11. In view of the above-said findings, the court is of considered view that the record is prima facie not sufficient to proceed criminally against the accused, accordingly, accused stands discharged for the offence under section 354A/509 IPC in the present FIR."
3. GROUNDS OF REVISION -- BRIEFLY STATED The State has preferred the present revision on the following principal grounds:
(a) That the impugned order is unjustified, unwarranted, and based upon arbitrary inferences, and the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate prosecution evidence;
(b) That the Ld. Trial Court applied an incorrect standard at the charge stage by conducting a detailed assessment akin to a mini-trial, instead of merely examining whether a prima facie case existed;
(c) That at the stage of framing of charge, even a strong suspicion would suffice, and the court must proceed on the assumption that prosecution material is true (State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659; State of MP v. Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338);
(d) That the complainant consistently stated in both her complaint and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the accused blew cigarette smoke on her face, hurled abuses, and pushed her by holding her jacket with wrong intention;DLND010118902025 Page 6 of 13
Cr Rev The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Satya Prakash
(e) That the Ld. Trial Court placed undue emphasis on the complainant's inability to state exact words of abuse, which is contrary to settled law, as the prosecution need not verbatim reproduce every word; and
(f) That the defence of the accused cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charges, and the impugned order was passed in haste, without proper application of mind.
4. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
(a) State/Petitioner: The Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor strenuously urged that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial. The complainant and witnesses -- her husband and sister -- consistently stated that the accused continuously stared at her, blew cigarette smoke on her face, physically pushed her by holding her jacket, and hurled abuses. This material, taken at face value, was submitted to be sufficient to frame charges. It was further urged that the failure to record specific words of abuse ought not to be treated as a fatal lacuna at the charge stage, relying upon Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274.
(b) Respondent-Accused: The Ld. Counsel for the accused supported the impugned order and submitted that the genesis of the entire incident was a trivial dispute over the sharing of a food table late at night. Even according to the prosecution's own material -- the complaint, Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses, and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement DLND010118902025 Page 7 of 13 Cr Rev The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Satya Prakash of the complainant -- no physical contact involving " unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures," as mandated by Section 354A(1)(i) IPC, was made out. On Section 509 IPC, reliance was placed upon the binding Supreme Court judgment in Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka, (2025) 2 S.C.R. 187, to submit that vague allegations of "abuses" without identification of specific words or modesty-insulting gestures do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 509 IPC. It was urged that no illegality warranting revisional interference was made out.
5. FINDINGS OF THE COURT
(a) Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the scope of this Court's power under Section 438 BNSS (erstwhile Section 397 Cr.P.C.). The revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate. This Court can interfere only where the impugned order is shown to be illegal, improper, or resulting in manifest injustice. The revisional court does not re-appraise evidence or substitute its view merely because a different conclusion is possible. The paramount inquiry is whether there is an error of law going to the root of the matter, or a patent illegality affecting jurisdiction. No such illegality is found in the present case.
(b) The Charge-Stage Standard -- Correctly Applied The Ld. Addl PP argued that at the stage of framing of charge, even a strong suspicion would suffice. This proposition is correct in its general DLND010118902025 Page 8 of 13 Cr Rev The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Satya Prakash import. However, it is equally well-settled -- and the Ld. Trial Court has correctly noted from Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Sanal, AIR 1979 SC 366 -- that the Trial Court at the charge stage is not a post- office or mouthpiece of the prosecution. The critical caveat in Prafulla Kumar Sanal is categorical: "if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused ." Applying this very test -- relied upon by the prosecution itself -- the Ld. Trial Court reached its finding of discharge. This Court finds no infirmity therein.
(c) Section 354A IPC -- Essential Ingredient of Explicit Sexual Overture Missing:
Section 354A(1)(i) IPC makes a person guilty of sexual harassment if he "commits physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures." The word "explicit" is the legislative linchpin. A bare perusal of the complainant's own statements reveals that the entire incident originated from a dispute over a food table. The accused instructed his friend to place his food plate on the table already occupied by the complainant's family; when her husband objected, an altercation ensued. The push -- whatever its character -- arose from this altercation. There is not a syllable in any prosecution document to indicate that the push was motivated by sexual intent or constituted an DLND010118902025 Page 9 of 13 Cr Rev The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Satya Prakash advance of a sexual nature. In the absence of this essential ingredient, the Ld. Trial Court correctly held that Section 354A(1)(i) IPC was not made out even at the prima facie level. The discharge on this count is unimpeachable.
(d) Section 509 IPC -- Binding Authority of Madhushree Datta Squarely Applicable:
i. Section 509 IPC penalises any word, gesture or act " intended to insult the modesty of any woman." Intention to insult modesty is the sine qua non of the offence. In Madhushree Datta v. The State of Karnataka & Anr., (2025) 2 S.C.R. 187, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down that the term "filthy language," when examined in isolation, and without any contextual framework or accompanying words indicating an intent to insult the complainant's modesty, does not fall within the purview of Section 509. The test, drawing from Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194, is whether the act was capable of "shocking the sense of decency of a woman," and the culpable intention of the accused is the crux. ii. In the present case, the complainant admittedly could not specify the words used by the accused. Neither the complaint, nor the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, nor the police during investigation, made any attempt to record specific words, DLND010118902025 Page 10 of 13 Cr Rev The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Satya Prakash gestures, or contextual details that would establish that the abuses were directed at the complainant's modesty as a woman -- as distinct from the general verbal abuse exchanged by both sides in the heat of a public brawl arising from a food table dispute. The background contextually points away from any sexual motive and towards plain anger and intoxication (witnesses noted the accused was visibly intoxicated). The Ld. Trial Court, applying the ratio of Madhushree Datta, rightly concluded that a bald allegation of "abuses" without identification of specific words or modesty-insulting gestures does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 509 IPC. This finding is sound, legally correct, and in consonance with binding Supreme Court authority.
(e) On the Argument That Exact Words Need Not Be Stated The Ld. Addl PP relied upon Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) to argue that verbatim reproduction of abusive words is not required. This proposition is correct in its abstract form. However, what is required -- as the same Fiona Shrikhande decision clarifies -- is that reading the complaint as a whole, the Court must be able to prima facie infer the culpable intention from background facts, the occasion, the manner in which words were used, and the persons involved. In Madhushree Datta, the Supreme Court, even while acknowledging that DLND010118902025 Page 11 of 13 Cr Rev The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Satya Prakash exact words need not be reproduced, held that some contextual basis --
specific references to gestures, accompanying conduct, or the nature of the language in relation to modesty -- must exist. In the present case, the entire prosecution material, read in its totality, points to a commonplace brawl. Nothing in the chargesheet (the complaint, the Section 164 statement, and the statements of witnesses) -- connects the abuses to any intent to insult the complainant's modesty as a woman. The argument of the State on this point, therefore, does not advance the revision.
(f) Contradiction in Complaint and Statement u/s 164 CrPC - There is material contradiction in the complaint made to police and statement u/s 164 CrPC, as in the complaint, the issue is stated to have arisen/started when the accused stared at the complainant, whereas as per the statement u/s 164 CrPC, the accused never stared at the complainant rather, he blew smoke of his cigarette towards the complainant. This is not a minor contradiction and it further strengthen the findings of the Ld. Trial Court.
(g) No Patent Illegality --
No Case for Revisional Interference: This Court has examined the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 with care. The Ld. Trial Court has adverted to the relevant legal principles, applied the binding Supreme Court authority in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Sanal and the very DLND010118902025 Page 12 of 13 Cr Rev The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Satya Prakash recent judgment in Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka, and assessed the prosecution material with the judiciousness appropriate to the charge stage. The discharge order is reasoned, law-compliant, and reflects a proper application of the judicial mind. The impugned order cannot be said to be illegal, patently illegal, or suffering from any error of jurisdiction, procedure, or law that would attract the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 BNSS. The mere fact that a different view may have been possible does not justify revisional interference.
6. CONCLUSION The Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court-01, Patiala House Courts, in passing the impugned order dated 26.09.2025, correctly applied the legal standard for discharge. The prosecution material, taken at face value and in its entirety, does not disclose the essential ingredients of either Section 354A(1)(i) IPC -- requiring unwelcome physical contact involving explicit sexual overtures -- or Section 509 IPC -- requiring a word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. The incident, emerging from its own factual matrix, was a dispute over shared seating at a late-night eatery that escalated into a physical and verbal altercation. The attempt to colour this episode in the hues of sexual harassment and insult to modesty, without adequate material to establish the necessary intent, is precisely the situation where the charge-stage DLND010118902025 Page 13 of 13 Cr Rev The State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Satya Prakash discharge power ought to be exercised -- and was rightly exercised here. This Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
7. ORDER
(a) In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, the present Criminal Revision Petition filed by the State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) is hereby DISMISSED.
(b) The impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Court of Ms. Kavita Bist, JMFC, Mahila Court-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Cr. Case No. 11129/2022 (FIR No. 50/2021, U/s 354A/509 IPC, P.S. Connaught Place), whereby the respondent-accused Satya Prakash was discharged from the offences under Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby CONFIRMED and UPHELD.
(c) The Trial Court record, if sent for, be returned forthwith along with copy of this order.
(d) File be consigned to the Record Room after due completion.
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH
Pronounced in open court on this PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH
27th day of March, 2026 LALER
Date: 2026.03.27
17:35:32 +0530
(Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05 New Delhi
Patiala House Courts Delhi
27.03.2026