Delhi District Court
Smt Milli vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 24 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER KAUR,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : SOUTH WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI.
ID No. 02405R0080722015
CR No. 62/2015
Smt Milli
W/o Sh. Arvind Kumar
R/o T-123, Near Chhawla Sweet Corner,
Shukar Bazar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059 ...... Revisionist
Vs.
1 State (N.C.T. OF Delhi)
2 Smt Bala Jain
W/o Sh Sudish Kumar Jain
alias S K Jain
3 Ms. Shruti Jain
4 Ms. Garima Jain
5 Ms. Sonia Jain
All D/Os Sh. Sudish Kumar Jain
alias S K Jain
All R/o T-121, 2nd floor,
Shukar Bazar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059 ....... Respondents
AND
ID No. 02405R0092042015
CR No. 69/2015
1 Ms.Sharuti Jain,
D/o Sh S K Jain,
2 Ms Sonia Jain
D/o Sh S K Jain
3 Ms. Garima Jain,
D/o Sh S K Jain
4 Smt Bala Jain,
W/o Sh S K Jain,
All R/o T-121, 2nd Floor,
Shukar Bazar Road, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-59 ....... Petitioners.
Vs.
State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ....... Respondent
Date of Institution : 14.07.15 & 03.08.15 respectively.
Date of Decision : 24.09.2015
O R D E R
By this order, I shall dispose of both the above referred criminal revision petitions since they are outcome of the same impugned order dated: 22-05-14, and 26-06-2014.
Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents in both the petitions.
Trial court record summoned and perused.
I have heard arguments addressed by Sh. V K Swami, Ld. Addl. PP, Ld. Counsel Shri Anil Kumar and Ld. Counsel Sh Neeraj Dahiya in both the revision petitions and have perused the record carefully.
Brief facts necessary for disposal of both the revision petitions are that on 03-08-2013, Milli w/o Arvind Kumar Kanojia, lodged report with the police that at about 6.00 pm she was getting her water supply connection checked when S.K. Jain, his wife and three daughters, resident of second floor came down and questioned her as to why she was getting the water supply connection checked. When the complainant protested they started abusing and quarreling with her. When she further protested, she was given legs and fists blow by them. In the meantime, S.K. Jain caught hold from her hair and threw her on the ground and while touching her breast, threatened to disrobe her and tore her clothes. On seeing all this, Beena, Kamlesh Bala, Savita and Priya, the neighbours came to the spot and tried to save her but S.K. Jain and his family members also abused and gave beatings to them. S.K. Jain also threatened to kill the child of the complainant and to get her husband falsely implicated in some case. He also threatened that as Sudhir Parmar was got falsely implicated by them, her husband would also be treated like him.
On the said complaint case FIR No. 352/13 PS-Bindapur was registered u/s 323/354/506/509/34 IPC. Vide impugned order the trial court framed charge u/s 323/354B/506 Part (II)/509 IPC against S.K. Jain and u/s 323/509 IPC against Sonia Jain, Garima Jain, Bala Jain and Shruti Jain. It is the impugned order which has been challenged by Milli, (herein after referred as complainant) vide CR No. 62/2015 and by accused Shruti Jain, Sonia Jain, Garima Jain and Bala Jain (herein after referred as accused persons) vide CR No. 69/2015.
The counsel for the complainant has submitted that vide impugned order the trial court has framed charge against the daughters of accused S.K. Jain, only u/s 323 IPC which as resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that section 8 IPC defines gender. That the pronoun "he" and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male or female. That section 354 IPC thus equally applies on the females and they can also be prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s 354 IPC. Further that in the present case the trial court did not frame charge u/s 354/34 IPC against the daughters of accused S.K. Jain and has thus violated the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. He has relied upon the judgment in the case titled Girdhar Gopal VS State 1953 Crl. Law Journal, 964, whereby it was held that section 354 operates upon all the persons whether males or females and it cannot be maintained that women are exempt from any punishment under this section. It is submitted that the charge u/s 354 IPC is also liable to be framed against accused Shruti Jain, Sonia Jain, Bala Jain and Garima Jain, i.e. the respondent no. 2 to 5 in CR no. 62/15.
Vide CR No. 69/15, accused Shruti Jain, Sonia Jain, Bala Jain and Garima Jain, have also challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the charge u/s 509 IPC was wrongly framed against them. It is submitted that prima facie there is no material available from the record against them to attract the provisions of section 509 IPC. That while these accused persons were granted anticipatory bail by the court of concerned ASJ, Dwarka Court, it was observed in the order that there was no allegation in the FIR that these accused persons had molested the complainant and issued any kind of threats to her. That the impugned order of the trial court to the effect whereby it is held that prima facie case is made out against them u/s 509 IPC and framing of charge against three of them is liable to be set aside.
After hearing the submissions of both the parties, I have carefully gone through the material available on record.
So far the contention of complainant that charge is liable to be framed against all the accused namely Shruti Jain, Sonia Jain, Bala Jain and Garima Jain, u/s 354 IPC, is concerned, though I fully agree with the contention for the complainant Milli, that the charge u/s 354 IPC can also be framed against female accused provided there are prima facie allegations that they had also molested the complainant or issued any kind of threat to her. It is the contention of the counsel for the complainant that accused S.K. Jain, had molested the complainant in furtherance of the common intention with his wife and daughters. However, there is no material available on record to this effect that the wife and the daughters of accused S.K. Jain in any manner incited or abetted him to outrage the modesty of the complainant, so as to, attract the provisions of section 354 IPC against them as well. The accused S.K. Jain has been charged with the offence punishable u/s 354B for assault or use of criminal force to the complainant with intent to disrobe her. However, from the material available on record there is not an iota of evidence that his wife and daughters in any manner assisted him in commission of the said offence. The quarrel had taken place on spur of moment and was not in pre-planned manner. As such, the wife and daughters of the accused S.K. Jain could not have anticipated that during the quarrel he would outrage the modesty of the complainant. Despite the fact that the male accused had outraged the modesty of the complainant in the course of a quarrel which took place between the parties but by no stretch of imagination the common intention can be attributed to the female accused persons. Therefore, I find no force in the argument of the counsel for the complainant that charge u/s 354 IPC is also made out against the female accused persons.
So far, CR No. 69/15 is concerned it is the contention of the counsel for the female accused persons that the provisions of section 509 IPC are not attracted in the present case qua them and the charge was wrongly framed against them. Section 509 IPC reads as under :-
Section 509. 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 terms which may extend to three years, and also with fine).
To attract the provision of section 509 IPC, it is required that a person :-
I. utters any word, II. makes any sound or gesture or III. 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.
The counsel for the accused persons have submitted that prima facie there is no evidence on record that the female accused persons had used any words or gestures with intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant or by utterance of any such word or use of gestures, any insult was caused to her.
I have carefully gone through the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC, wherein she has categorically alleged that while she was getting her water supply connection checked, accused S.K. Jain along with his wife and three daughters had started abusing her and quarreled with her. Similarly in her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC, it is stated by her that Bala Jain and her daughters hurled filthy abuses to her. These allegations in my opinion are sufficient to attract the provisions of section 509 IPC. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders dated 22-05-14, and 26-06-2014. The revision petitions are thus dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith copy of this order.
Revision files be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court on the 24th day of September, 2015 (Ravinder Kaur) District & Sessions Judge South West District Dwarka Courts CR No. 62/2015 Milli VS State & Ors.CR No. 69/2015
Shruti Jain and Ors. VS State 24.09.2015 Present: None.
Vide my separate order of the date, the revision petitions are dismissed. TCR be sent back along with copy of this order.
Revision files be consigned to record room.
(Ravinder Kaur) District & Sessions Judge South West District Dwarka Courts Page no.20