Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Further, the trial Court and the revisional Court discharged the accused on the basis of two views, one which gives rise to the mere suspicion and another grave. The Court will only frame charges if there is grave suspicion. Which is principle of law laid down under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. falling under Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C. Trial in Sessions case, whereas the present case falls under Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C. Trial of Warrant cases by Magistrate. The First Schedule of Cr.P.C. the offences under S.354 and 509 IPC is trial by magistrate and the provision that attracts for discharge is S.239 Cr.P.C.

8. Before dealing with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the contents of the FIR, the allegations made in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as well the reasons for which the learned MM preferred to discharge the accused for the offences under Section 354/509 IPC. The learned ADJ while affirming the order on discharge in respect of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, directed the accused to be tried only for the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC.

11. Copy of the chargesheet annexed with the petition reveals that on 20th June, 2014 the complainant was produced for getting her statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded and on the basis of allegations made therein i.e. touching of breast, Section 354 IPC was also added in the FIR.

12. On 27th September, 2016 after hearing the parties including the complainant who was present with counsel, learned Trial Court, after extracting the provisions of Section 354 IPC and 509 IPC, discharged the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354/509 IPC for the following reasons:-

16. At the time of consideration of charge, the learned Trial Court was required to satisfy itself whether a prima facie case for committing the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is made out and relying on the recording done by the complainant herself and placed by her on record which was duly referred even in the FIR, the learned Trial Court was of the view that it was not a case of outraging the modesty of a woman and the abusive behavior or refusal to comply with the Court order cannot be a ground to frame a charge under Section 354/509 IPC.