Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. In the present FIR, the respondent no. 2 has alleged that on the day of the incident, the petitioners, Sh. Satya Prakash and Sh. Rameshwar, who were residents of B-11/8169, Vasant Kunj and occupied the ground floor of the respondent's flat, had called her son to their residence through the security guard, Sh. Vedprakash. The petitioners had accused her son of climbing the balcony of his flat no. B-11/8171, by using a ladder from their premises. The son of respondent no. 2, however, had clarified that the main door of the flat was locked from the inside and that there was no other way out but through the balcony. He had further explained that he had climbed the balcony using a ladder provided by the security guard, from the public passage and not from the private premises of the petitioners. Despite this explanation, the petitioners had allegedly pushed the respondent's son back and used abusive language against him. In addition, the petitioners' sister had come out of the house and had also started using offensive language toward the respondent. Upon hearing the commotion on the ground floor, the respondent no. 2 had rushed to the spot to intervene and rescue her son. The respondent no. 2 had reportedly requested the petitioners to resolve the matter, as her son had entered through the public passage under the supervision of the security guard and had not committed any offence. However, it is alleged that the petitioners had immediately hit the respondent no. 2 on the chest and had hurled filthy language, including terms such as ―Saali‖ and ―Kutti‖, thus insulting and outraging her modesty in a highly disturbing manner.

5. On the other hand, in FIR No. 95/2017, the sister of the petitioners herein had alleged that on 26.02.2017, at around 10 PM, when they had returned to their house, the guard had informed them that one Mahapatra's son, residing in 8171, had been climbing into their house with the help of a ladder. Upon receiving this information, they had called Mahapatra's son, and when he had arrived, he had begun misbehaving and abusing them. It is further alleged that he had slapped her, had used abusive language, had pulled her clothes, and had even threatened to kill them. Subsequently, they had dialed 100 number and lodged a complaint.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the present FIR had been lodged by respondent no. 2, against the petitioners herein, alleging that the petitioners had physically assaulted respondent no. 2's son and used abusive language, despite his explanation that he had accessed the balcony from a public passage, as the main door was locked and there was no trespass on the petitioners' property. Moreover, he argued that respondent no. 2 had been physically assaulted by the petitioners, who had struck her on the chest and hurled filthy language, thereby outraging her modesty. He further contended that in the absence of cross-FIR No. 95/2017 and its chargesheet before this Court, the present FIR No. 96/2017 and its chargesheet cannot be quashed. The learned counsel argued that the maintainability of the present FIR cannot be challenged or adjudicated on the basis of allegations related to an unrelated FIR No. 95/2017, particularly when the delays and issues in that case bear no direct bearing on the merits or facts of the present FIR. Further, he argued that since the chargesheet in the present FIR was filed in a timely manner and no allegations were made against the I.O. in this FIR, the petitioners could not claim that the delay in filing the chargesheet in FIR No. 95/2017 should serve as a ground for quashing FIR No. 96/2017.