Delhi District Court
Dr Preeti Tiwari vs State on 18 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02,
DWARKA COURTS, S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of: -
Revision No. 201/2024.
CNR No. DLSW01-003238-2025.
'PT'
(Parentage and address of the
Digitally
signed by
SHIVALI
complainant withheld in order
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.09.18
to conceal her identity) ....Revisionist
17:06:46
+0530
Vs.
1. State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Sh. Rajagopalan Krishnan
3. Sh. Ram Krishnan
Both R/o Flat No.5002, Plot No.8-A,
Sector-11, Ashoka Enclave,
Dwarka, Delhi. ... Respondents.
Date of Institution : 16.04.2025.
Date of Arguments : 18.09.2025.
Date of Order : 18.09.2025.
ORDER
1. This is a revision petition filed by the complainant/revisionist against the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court-02, Dwarka Court, New Delhi whereby respondents No.2 and 3/accused persons were discharged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A/354B/509/34 of Indian CR No. 201/25.
PT Vs. State & others. Page No. 1 of 6.
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and for the offence punishable u/S 75 of Juvenile Justice Act.
2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that on 22.06.2018, the respondent No.2 (in short 'R2') had beaten the children of the revisionist and when revisionist along with her husband went to the house of the respondent No.2 to know the reason, he along with his son/respondent No.3 (in short 'R3') throttled the neck of the revisionist. It is further alleged that both R2 and R3 also abused the revisionist and threatened her with dire consequences. On this complaint, SHIVALI BANSAL FIR was lodged and the matter was investigated by the Digitally signed by police. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against R2 for the SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.18 17:06:55 +0530 offence punishable u/Ss. 323/341/506/354/354A/354B/509 r/w 34 IPC & 75 J. J. Act and against R3 for commission of offence punishable u/S 354/354A/354B/509/34 IPC.
3. In the revision petition, it is mentioned that two sons of revisionist namely Utkarsh, aged about 11 years and Akshaja, aged about 5 years, came crying to the husband of the revisionist and told that R2 had beaten them. R2 had also held hand of Utkarsh, slapped him and pushed him taking bat away from him. Utkarsh fell down and got injuries on his knees. R2 had also held and slapped Akashaja and snatched his bat also. Akshaja was injured on his forehead. R2 told the children to tell their parents to come to his flat for taking bats back. When revisionist went at the house of R2 and R3 who are father and son respectively, they abused the revisionist in filthy language.
CR No. 201/25.
PT Vs. State & others. Page No. 2 of 6.
R2 lifted a knife and also threatened her of dire consequences. R3 also throttled her neck. MLCs of both the children were prepared.
4. It is further mentioned that on 23.6.2018 at about 8.30 PM when revisionist and her husband were walking in the residential area of the society, R2 and his wife started abusing and threatening the revisionist to harm and kill their family members. Another complaint was made to the Police and FIR No.187/2018 u/s 323/341 IP was registered against R2 and R3.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that wife of R2 has also lodged a complaint against the revisionist from the same SHIVALI incident for which FIR No.312/2018 has been registered BANSAL Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL on 30.9.2018. It is stated in the revision that second FIR is Date: 2025.09.18 17:07:02 +0530 motivated by maliciously wreaking vengeance due to personal grudge of FIR No.187/2018. Revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the ground that Ld. Trial Court did not consider MLCs of both the injured; seizure of bats and statement of revisionist/complainant recorded u/S 164 Cr.PC.
6. I have heard Sh. Avneesh Rana, Ld. Counsel for revisionist; Sh. Parvez Alam, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. Lalit Rana, Ld. Counsel for R2 and R3.
7. Ld. Counsel for revisionist and Ld. Addl. PP for State have contended that prima facie case punishable u/S 506/509 IPC is made out against both the accused persons/R2 & R3.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for R2 and R3 state that CR No. 201/25.
PT Vs. State & others. Page No. 3 of 6.
there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. Trial court. Ld. Counsel concedes that prima facie case for commission of offence punishable u/S 506 IPC is made out but no offence u/S 509 IPC is made out against any of the respondents. In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel has relied upon judgment - Madhushree Datta vs. State of Karnataka, (2025) 2 SCR 187.
9. I have gone through the files. There is nothing on record against R2 and R3 on the basis of which the charge can be framed against them for committing offence punishable u/s 354A/354B IPC and S.75 JJ Act. However, in her complaint recorded vide DD No.26B dated 12.10.2019 SHIVALI complainant has stated that R2 picked up a knife from the BANSAL Digitally signed by dining table and threatened to kill her and continued SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.18 17:07:09 +0530 abusive filthy language. In the meantime, R3 got up and started to throttle her by neck. R2 pressed both her breasts damaging her undergarments. Ld. Trial Court discharged both the accused persons for the commission of offence punishable u/S 509 IPC on the ground that revisionist has not specified the words alleged to be spoken in any of her statement and accordingly, no prima facie case exists u/S 509 IPC against both the accused persons. This Court is of the view that allegations have been made that R2 abused the revisionist in filthy language which are sufficient at the stage of framing of charge. What specific words were spoken is a matter of trial. Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to several previous decisions held that the crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing of CR No. 201/25.
PT Vs. State & others. Page No. 4 of 6.
charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
10.Section 506 of the IPC defines criminal intimidation by a threat to a person's person, reputation, or property, or that of someone in whom they are interested, with the intent to cause them alarm or to make them perform or omit an act. The essential ingredients are threat of a specific nature (injury to person, reputation, or property), intent to cause alarm or pressure to act/omit to act, and a nature of SHIVALI threat that creates fear or distress in the victim's mind. BANSAL 11. The essential elements for Section 34 of the Indian Penal Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Code (IPC) are: (1) a criminal act must be done by several Date: 2025.09.18 17:07:16 +0530 persons, (2) there must be a common intention shared by all, and (3) all participants must have been present and in some way involved in the commission of the act in furtherance of that intention. Section 34 doesn't create a new crime but rather establishes a rule of evidence to hold individuals jointly liable for the actions of a group, even if not all participants directly committed the harmful act.
12. In the present case, when R2 lifted a knife; threatened the revisionist to kill and used filthy abusive language, at the same time, R3 got up and throttled the neck of the revisionist which prima facie constitutes common intention by both R2 and R3 for the alleged offences.
13.In these circumstances and for the abovesaid reasons, the CR No. 201/25.
PT Vs. State & others. Page No. 5 of 6.
impugned order dated 09.1.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC is modified to the extent that case u/s 506/509/34 IPC is made out against R2 and R3. Ld. Trial Court is directed to frame the charge for the offence punishable u/S 506/509/34 IPC against both the accused persons/R2 and R3 and to proceed further in accordance with law.
14.Revision petition with pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
15.Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of the order and revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed SHIVALI by SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.09.18 17:07:23 +0530 Announced in the open (SHIVALI BANSAL) Court on 18.09.2025. ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS, S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI CR No. 201/25.
PT Vs. State & others. Page No. 6 of 6.