Delhi District Court
State vs Surender Chauhan on 11 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 2123/2018
FIR No. : 245/2017
Police Station : Saket
Section(s) : 506/509/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
Surender Chauhan
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chauhan
R/o C-57, Panchsheel Vihar
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi .... Accused
1.Name of Complainant : Smt. Archna Yadav 2. Name of Accused : Surender Chauhan 3. Offence complained of or proved : 506/509/34 IPC 4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty 5. Date of commission of offence : 18.10.2016 6. Date of Filing of case : 11.05.2018 7. Date of Reserving Order : 25.02.2025 8. Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 9. Final Order : Acquitted Argued by - Ld. APP for the State. Ld. Counsel for the accused. State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 1 of 14
"Well, I can't put it any more clearly, sir, for it isn't clear to me"
Alice in Wonderland , Lewis Carroll The testimony of complainant was shown to be fraught with several inconsistencies. Her testimony received no great support from that of PW3 either. Crevices in its case point towards existence of doubt in the case of prosecution, to the benefit of the accused. He is thus, acquitted.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. As per the complaint of complainant dated 19.10.2016, when she exited the Court room where the proceedings in which she and accused were both parties were listed, at Saket Courts District Complex, on 18.10.2016, the accused along with an unknown man, whom he referred to as his "bouncer", and along with an unknown woman, started following her. The unknown persons accompanying the accused also clicked certain photographs of the complainant and made her videos on their mobile phones. Being fearful, the complainant went to the lawyer's canteen in Saket District Court, and the accused along with his accomplices also reached there. She then called one Kiran Singh to the canteen. When the latter reached there, and both of them started to leave the Court complex, the accused again started following them, threatened to implicate them in a false rape case, threatened to kill the complainant, abused her, and left. On the basis of this complaint, the subject FIR was registered u/s 509/506/34 IPC.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. It is State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 2 of 14 stated in the charge sheet that the co-accused could not be traced despite efforts. Cognizance of the offences as disclosed in the charge sheet was taken, and accused was summoned to face trial. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, charge was framed against him under Section 506/509/34 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of PE.
3. In support of its version, prosecution has examined five witnesses.
PW Name Nature of Testimony
PW1 Ms. Archna Yadav Complainant
PW2 W/HC Shalini Formal witness
PW3 Sh. Kiran Singh Erstwhile employer of complainant
PW4 HC Suresh Formal witness
PW5 HC Khemraj IO
4. Accused admitted, as per Section 294 CrPC, the genuineness of statement of complainant recorded u/s 164 CrPC by Ld. MM (Ex A1), endorsement by DO (Ex A2), the present FIR (Ex A3), and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act (Ex A4). In view of the above said admission, rest of the prosecution witnesses, all formal in nature, were dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined. PE was closed thereafter.
5. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statement of accused was recorded under Section 281/313 CrPC, wherein he claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations levelled against him. He stated that no such incident as alleged took place, and after having attended the Court State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 3 of 14 proceedings on the day of the alleged incident, he had gone with his counsel to his chamber. He stated that the complainant has implicated him in a false case on account of prior disputes between the parties. Accused opted not to lead any DE in the affirmative.
6. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of final arguments. Arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
7. Section 509 IPC penalizes the insult to the modesty of a woman by way of words spoken, a gesture made, or a physical act. It has been held by the Superior Courts from time to time that modesty of a woman is a complex concept, shaped by societal values, and is linked to a woman by virtue of her gender, but is not limited to her body, and extends to her mind and personality as well. In Rupan Deol Bajaj vs Kanwar Pal Singh, 1995 SCC (6) 194, the ingredients of Section 509 IPC were discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
"15. In State of Punjab vs. Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63) a question arose whether a female child of seven and a half months could be said to be possessed of 'modesty' which could be outraged. In answering the above question Mudholkar J., who along with Bachawat J. spoke for the majority, held that when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 354 IPC. Needless to say, the 'common notions of mankind' referred to by the learned Judge have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. The other learned Judge (Bachawat J.) observed that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the attribute of her sex. From the above dictionary meaning of 'modesty' and the interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh's case (supra) it appears to us that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is, is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman..." (emphasis supplied)"
State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 4 of 14
8. As regards Section 506 IPC, it is to be noted that the same provides for punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation is defined in Section 503 IPC as the threat of injury to the person, reputation or property of a person extended by another with intent to cause alarm to the person, or to cause him to do some act which he is not legally bound to do. Section 506 IPC itself is bifurcated into two parts. The first part provides for criminal intimidation where the threat extended is not grave, and the second part provides for punishment if the threat extended is grave in nature, and is of causing death, grievous hurt, or destruction of any property by fire etc. For proving an offence punishable u/s 506 IPC, the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution are:
(i) That the accused threatened some person.
(ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person,
reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested;
(iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
9. In Suresh Chand Mishra & Anr vs State (NCT of Delhi), Crl. Rev. P. 831/2018 (DOD: 19.12.2022), as regards offence punishable u/s 506 IPC, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
"It is clear from the definition of Section 506 of IPC that the immediate State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 5 of 14 purpose of criminal intimidation is to induce a person threatened to do cause alarm to that person or to pause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat or further that such threat consisted of some injury to the complainant his reputation or property or injury to the person's reputation or property of someone the complainant was interested in. In the present case, none of these ingredients were present even on perusal of the entire material placed before the learned Trial Court. Thus, in view of the fore-going discussion, the case under Section 506 of IPC is held not to be made out against the petitioner."
10. Facts of the case shall be analyzed in view of the legal position discussed above. Complainant/PW1 Archna Yadav deposed in her examination-in-chief that in the year 2016, she had come to Saket Courts Complex to attend the hearing in a civil case filed by her against the accused, and on that day, accused had brought with him one bouncer with 2-3 more persons. She deposed that after the proceedings in the case were over, and she exited the Court room, the persons who were there with the accused started misbehaving with her and started quarreling with her. It is pertinent to note here that in the first complaint filed by her, as also in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC being Ex A1, the complainant had merely stated that the accused was accompanied with only one bouncer and one woman, whereas she embellished her version in her testimony to state that the accused was accompanied by one bouncer and 2-3 other persons. The attempt made by the complainant in improving her version makes her credibility questionable.
11. Moving ahead, she further improved her version and stated that the accused persons had started misbehaving with her as soon as she left the court room, whereas she had not mentioned the same either in her initial State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 6 of 14 complaint or in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC. Now, whereas she stated that the accused had started misbehaving with her outside the Court room itself, she failed to explain exactly what fight had taken place, why did she not raise hue and cry outside the Court room itself when the accused started misbehaving with her, and why there was no intervention of public persons or guards outside the Court room at the relevant time. From her testimony, it is not even clear in what manner the accused misbehaved with her. Instead of explaining the same, she deposed that accused persons started chasing her, and she then went to the canteen in the lawyers' chamber area. She deposed that she then made a telephonic call to her employer Kiran, who came to the spot as well. She deposed that the accused persons also reached the spot and also started abusing her, and threatening her to withdraw her case. It is not clear from the testimony of the witness why the accused persons would wait until her employer namely, Sh. Kiran Singh attended her phone call, and reached the canteen, before extending threats to her. It seems farcical, if not down right absurd, that the accused persons would wait for another witness to reach the spot of the incident before abusing and threatening the complainant, although they had been chasing her all along. The testimony of the witness shows material gaps, which creates a further doubt qua its veracity.
12. It is noticeable from the testimony of PW1 that she stated that she had made a PCR call when the accused persons threatened her, and then gave the complaint Ex PW1/A in writing. However, no record of any PCR call allegedly made by her is available on the Court file. Further, even the complaint Ex PW1/A was made by her on the date following that of the incident. This creates a further doubt over the truthfulness of her version. State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 7 of 14 During her cross-examination, a suggestion was given to the witness that no such incident as alleged ever took place. While the suggestion was duly denied by the witness, the fact that there is no formal record of any PCR call made by the witness from the spot makes a version of prosecution doubtful.
13. It is further observed from the testimony of the witness that she merely stated that the accused had abused her in the canteen, without specifying the words that the accused had used. She stated that the accused also threatened to kill her if she did not withdraw the case filed by her against him, but failed to disclose the complete particulars of the incident as it unraveled in her testimony, until she was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State. It is only upon her cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, that she deposed regarding the specific terms of event i.e. qua the fact that the accused was accompanied by one girl on the day of incident as well, that the accused and his accomplices had chased her, and clicked her photographs, and made videos of her. Further, only when cross-examined by the Ld. APP for State did she say that the accused had threatened to implicate her and her employer Kiran in a false rape case, although pertinently, neither in her initial complaint nor in her statement had she stated that the accused had threatened to implicate them in any such false rape case. The fact that the witness did not disclose these events before she was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for State also casts a doubt on her version. Further, even upon her cross-examination by the Ld. APP for State, PW1 merely stated that the accused had abused her in filthy language without ever specifying what words were used by the accused or his accomplices. Merely this testimony of the witness that the accused had used State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 8 of 14 filthy words against her, without specifying the exact words so used by the accused, is not sufficient to reach the conclusion that the accused had outraged the modesty of the complainant. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs The State of Karnataka, 2025 INSC 105, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"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.
29. In considering the term "filthy language" objectively, in the overall conspectus of the case, we are of the view that the appellants' actions do not demonstrate the requisite intent or knowledge that would reasonably lead to the conclusion that their conduct could provoke such a severe emotional response as to constitute an insult to a woman's modesty."
14. In her cross-examination, the witness admitted that she had filed two other cases against the accused. When she was specifically asked if any case filed by her was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, she vaguely stated that she does not remember about the same. Furthermore, she vaguely stated that she does not remember if she has filed criminal cases against more than 24 people. The vague manner in which the witness answered the questions put to her damaged her credibility in equal measure as it can clearly be deduced from her testimony that there was prior animosity between the parties. In view of the same, the fact that the witness failed to specify the words used against her by the accused, which outraged her modesty, and also tried to embellish her testimony in various ways, assumes even more relevance. Whether the incident as alleged occurred State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 9 of 14 itself becomes doubtful, and it cannot be held beyond reasonable doubt that the witness was indeed insulted or criminally intimidated on the day of the incident.
15. What further makes her version doubtful is the fact that although she stated that she was being chased by the accused persons, she chose to not approach any guard or the Chowki Incharge at Saket Courts Complex, and instead went to the canteen, to wait for her employer Kiran Singh, without explaining why and how she was sure that the latter was present in the Court complex at the relevant time. Even more absurdly, the accused also kept waiting for Kiran Singh to turn up at the spot before threatening and insulting the complainant.
16. The said Kiran Singh stood as PW3. He testified that on 18.10.2016, he had come to Saket Court and was present in his chamber when he received the phone call from the complainant. The witness nowhere stated that he used to visit Saket Courts Complex everyday. He failed to explain why he was present in the Court Complex on the relevant day. Be that as it may, it is clear from his testimony that complainant Archna had no prior knowledge that he would be present in the Court Complex. PW1/Complainant also nowhere deposed that she was aware that PW3 would be available in the Court Complex itself. Yet, after being chased and threatened by the accused, and 4-5 others, the complainant chose to go to the canteen and give PW3 a phone call, instead of approaching the police authorities for help, or making a PCR call, itself creates a doubt if any such incident happened, or if it did, arguendo, whether it caused any alarm to the complainant.
State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 10 of 14
17. In his examination-in-chief, PW3 deposed that when he reached the canteen, he saw that accused Surender and one bouncer were quarreling with the complainant. Pertinently, the complainant nowhere deposed anything as regards such a quarrel in the canteen. Furthermore, PW3 deposed that when he reached the spot, he was threatened by accused, who said that he would implicate him in a false case. He also deposed that when he and the complainant were leaving the canteen, accused and his bouncer abused the complainant and threatened to kill her. Whereas the complainant had stated in her initial complaint that one woman was also accompanying the accused, and in her testimony, she also deposed that the accused had 2-3 other accomplices besides the female, PW3 in his testimony made reference to only one bouncer. Neither of the two witnesses explained why they thought that the person accompanying the accused allegedly was a bouncer, what made them reach such conclusion, for it can surely not be the case that the accused would be addressing his accomplice not by his name, but as a "bouncer".
18. In his cross-examination, PW3 deposed that he does not remember if the complainant had lodged an FIR against the accused previously as well. He also deposed that he does not remember if the said FIR has already been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He admitted that the complainant used to be her employee at the relevant time, and he was running an office of weekly newspapers in the name and style of Kinni Times. From the tenor of the testimony of the witness, it is clear that the witness is an interested witness and as such, his testimony as regards the alleged incident becomes doubtful.
State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 11 of 14
19. The witness testified that he had his own chamber at Saket Court Complex at the relevant time. He also testified that a crowd was gathered in the canteen when he reached there upon the phone call of the complainant. It can be presumed that having his own chamber in the same Court Complex, the witness would be acquainted with other lawyers etc. Yet, it is not his testimony that any person tried to help him or the complainant, nor was any independent witness ever joined to the incident. The alleged incident took place in a crowded lawyers' canteen, but neither of the witnesses explained why there was no intervention from the public persons or Members of the Bar, who must have been present in the canteen while the accused, accompanied with 3-4 persons, was openly threatening and abusing them. This is also a material gap in the case of the prosecution.
20. Neither of the witnesses specified what filthy words were used by the accused or his accomplices. They could not explain why the accused persons kept waiting for PW3 Kiran Singh to reach the spot before abusing and threatening the complainant. They could also not cogently explain why despite being allegedly alarmed by the threats given to them by the accused, they did not approach the Incharge of the Police Post inside the Court Complex immediately, and instead waited until the next date to file the complaint against the accused. When considered in light of the prior animosity subsisting between the parties, the case of prosecution, replete with several doubts, is seen to crumble completely. It cannot be held beyond reasonable doubt that any incident as alleged took place, or that any alarm was indeed caused to the complainant or PW3. It also cannot be held, solely on the basis of the fact that PW1 or PW3 deposed that accused used State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 12 of 14 'filthy words' without specifying what the words were, that the modesty of the complainant was outraged by the accused on the day of the incident.
21. Testimonies of the other witnesses, formal in nature, also nowhere help the case of the prosecution. PW2 HC Shalini deposed that she had got the statement of complainant recorded u/s 164 CrPC. Her testimony does not add or subtract anything material to the case of prosecution.
22. Similarly, PW4 HC Suresh testified that he had joined the case along with the IO on 20.06.2017. He proved the arrest memo of the accused, Ex PW4/A. He also proved the personal search memo of the accused and his disclosure statement, Ex PW4/B and Ex PW4/C. The testimony of this witness does not establish the veracity of the prosecution case in any manner.
23. PW5 IO HC Khemraj stated that he had received the complaint of the complainant vide DD no. 35B on 19.10.2016. He testified that after the investigation of the case was marked to him, he prepare the site plan, Ex PW5/A, served the notice u/s 41A CrPC upon the accused, Ex PW5/B, and later arrested him vide arrest memo, Ex PW4/A. He also testified that he had moved an application, Ex PW5/C before the concerned Court for recording of statement of the complainant u/s 164 CrPC, upon which her statement was so recorded. From the testimony of this witness, nothing inculpatory against the accused could be established on record either.
24. In his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, the accused stated that after attending the Court proceedings, he had gone to the chamber of his counsel State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 13 of 14 with him, and no such incident as alleged took place. He testified that the subject proceedings are motivated, and the complainant had filed other cases against him as well. Given the fact that complainant indulged in deliberate obfuscation regarding the previous litigation between the parties, it seems probable that the subject FIR was filed by her in a motivated manner with a view to falsely implicate the accused.
25. It is seen that prosecution could not prove its version against the accused beyond every reasonable doubt. The accused could probablize his defence that the FIR was filed against him by the complainant in view of prior disputes and litigations pending between them. Accordingly, as the prosecution failed to traverse the distance between 'may have' to 'must have', accused Surender Chauhan S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chauhan stands acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 506/509/34 IPC.
26. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance with Section 437A CrPC.
Pronounced in open Court on Digitally signed by Medha Arya 11.03.2025 in the presence Medha Date: of accused. Arya 2025.03.11 16:33:19 +0530 (Medha Arya) Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.03.2025 State vs. Surender Chauhan FIR No. 245/2017, PS: Saket Page 14 of 14