Delhi District Court
1/6 State vs . Amarjeet on 21 August, 2014
1/6 State Vs. Amarjeet
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN: MM
(MAHILA COURTS): ROHINI: DELHI.
State Vs. Amarjeet
FIR No. 165/13
PS -SB Dairy
U/s 323/354A/427/506 IPC
21.08.2014
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused in person alongwith Ld. counsel.
1.Vide this order, I would take my decision for framing of charge.
2. I have carefully heard arguments on the point of charge.
3. Ld. Defence Counsel has considered that prima facie no charge is made out against the accused Amarjeet and sought discharge of the accused as allegations made against him are vague and frivolous.
4. However, Ld. APP for State has argued that there are specific allegations against the accused person and therefore accused be charged accordingly.
5. I have heard the arguments of both the parties, perused the record carefully.
6. It is well settled that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to 2/6 State Vs. Amarjeet marshal the evidence and record a finding that the materials collected by the prosecuting agency are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed.
7. So far as charge U/s 323 IPC is concerned it provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt and therefore it is necessary to go through the section 319 IPC which provided the definition of hurt:
Section 319 stipulates as under: "Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt"
8. Perusal of the charge sheet reveals that complainant has levelled allegations that on 27.3.13 at around 6.30p.m. When she was standing in front of her house accused Amarjeet came there and started using abusing language for the complainant, accused had hit on the breast of the complainant and torned her blouse and kurta, accused picked up on brick from the gali and threw it in the house of the complainant, said brick hitted the DVD lying in the complainant's house and DVD got destroyed. On being resisted by the complainant, accused Amarjeet dragged the complainant by pulling her hair and slapped her. As there are allegations of dragging the complainant and slapping her as well as torning the suit and 3/6 State Vs. Amarjeet blouse of the complainant by the accused, prima facie offence U/s 323 IPC is made out against the accused.
9. So far as offence U/s 354 A IPC is concerned it stipulates that "Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment - A man committing any of the following acts
i) Physical contact and advanced involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (I) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause
(iv) of sub section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. "
10. Perusal of the charge sheet reveals that there are allegations that accused Amarjeet used abusive language for the complainant and torn her blouse and kurta and also hitted her on her breast. Therefore, primafacie, an offence U/s 354 A IPC is made 4/6 State Vs. Amarjeet out against accused. Therefore the accused is liable to be charged U/s 354 A IPC
11. So far as offence U/s 506 IPC is concerned it provided punishment for offence of criminal intimidation, therefore it is necessary to go through the provision of section 503 IPC which contains the definition of criminal intimidation.
Section 503 IPC stipulates that:
"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."
12. Persual of the charge sheet reveals that complainant has nowhere alleged that accused Amarjeet had extended any kind of threat to the complainant. Therefore accused is liable to be discharged U/s 506 IPC as Prima facie, an offence U/s 506 IPC is not made out against accused.
13. So far as offence U/s 427 IPC is concerned it provides punishment to the person who commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the tune of Rs. 50 or upwards to any other 5/6 State Vs. Amarjeet person. It is necessary to go to the provision of section 425 IPC which provides definition of mischief.
Section 425 IPC stipulates that :
Whoever with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits 'mischief'.
It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intents to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not.
Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commit the act, or to that person and others jointly.
14. Perusal of the charge sheet reveals that accused picked up on brick from the gali and threw it in the house of the complainant, said brick hitted the DVD lying in the complainant's house and DVD got destroyed. Therefore, prima facie accused is liable to be charged u/s 427 IPC as accused has committed mischief by damaging the DVD lying in the complainant's house.
15. Prima facie an offence U/s 354A/323/427 IPC are made out against the accused Amarjeet. Charge be framed accordingly against above stated accused person.
16. Put up for framing of charge on 15.10.2014.
(SHILPI JAIN) MM/ROHINI/DELHI.
21.08.2014