Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner who is present in this Hon'ble Court, is a victim of offences that carry moral stigma, demands by virtue of the inherent powers to be heard modicum. Predisposition of mind without hearing is antithesis of the Judicial Convention, hence beg this Hon'ble Court to be heard.
"Injustice is easy to bear, but what stings is justice."'

7. Mr.V.Elanchezhiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although at the time of registration of FIR the petitioner did not make any allegation which constituted an offence under Section 354 IPC but in her statement under Section 164 CrPC she did make such allegation. The FIR is not an encyclopedia and for purpose of framing of charge, the statement which formed basis for registration of FIR as well the statement under Section 164 CrPC should have been considered by the Court. It has also been submitted that in the statement under Section 164 CrPC, she has specifically mentioned that accused touched her breast while pushing her out of the room and whether such an act was with the requisite intention to outrage her modesty, is a subject matter of trial. It has also been contended that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the learned ASJ ought not to have confirmed the order of learned MM discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. It has been contended that the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and Section 509 IPC being triable by the Court of Magistrate, at the stage of framing of charge the relevant provisions governing the stage of charge before the Magistrate are Section 238 and 239 CrPC and not Section 227 CrPC which is applicable in cases triable by the Court of Sessions. Thus, the impugned order which has been passed citing the provisions relating to sessions trial cases i.e. under Section 227 Cr.P.C., has caused serious miscarriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon State of Punjab vs. Major Singh 1967 AIR 63 and Samar Singh Puri vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) in Crl.Rev.P. No.129/2009 decided on 09th May, 2011 and submitted that the decision in criminal revision petition is binding on this Court.

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:-

14. The prayer to direct the accused to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC has been rejected by the learned ASJ for the following reasons:-

(i) There was not an iota of allegations towards the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.
(ii) The learned Trial Court has discussed the recorded conversation in respect of the entire incident recorded by the complainant from the time she entered the room of the Chairman of the school/accused which continued even she left.
(vii) There is CD regarding conversation and its transcript, recorded by the complainant regarding the incident.
(viii) There is a delay of nine days in getting the statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded.
(ix) There was not an iota of allegations regarding offence under Section 354 IPC in the initial complaint or in the CD recording.

15. After discussing the settled legal position at the stage of charge and relying on the decision reported as Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 SCC 135, the learned ASJ was of the view that the evidence produced by the prosecution gives rise only to some suspicion and not grave suspicion against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, hence the order of learned Trial Court discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC was upheld.