Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 04.07.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by Ld. MM­03 (Mahila Court), South­West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, whereby, the ld. Trial Court has ordered for framing charge for the offences under Section 354/354B/323/509 IPC against the petitioner in State Case arising out of FIR No.216/2015 registered at PS Bindapur, he has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

Criminal Revision No. 328/2018 D.O.D.: 13.02.2020

2. Brief facts relevant and necessary for deciding the present revision petition are that FIR no.216/2015 (supra) was registered in respect of offences under Section 354/354B/379/323/509 IPC at PS Bindapur on 09.02.2015 on the complaint of complainant Ms. 'K' (identity withheld), wherein she alleged that on 07.02.2015 at about 10.00 pm near MCD School, DDA Flats, Bindapur, Delhi, while she alongwith her neighbourer Ms. 'S' (identity withheld) were returning back from the house of her relative and reached near MCD School, one car being driven by the petitioner herein, came from behind and stopped near them. The petitioner alighted from the said car and abused her and tapped his hand on her chest and dragged her from her chest, due to which her wearing upper shirt torn off and her wearing gold chain fell down and she sustained injuries. When she raised alarm, he fled away in the same car. After completion of investigation, the petitioner stood chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Section 354/354B/379/323/509 IPC. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, ld. MM discharged the petitioner for offence under Section 379 IPC while observing that there is no allegation that chain was intended to be taken away by the petitioner/accused. However, she formed opinion that there was sufficient material to frame charge in respect of offences under Section 354/354B/323/509 IPC and consequently, directed to frame charge against the petitioner for said offences vide impugned order which is under challenge in the present revision petition.

8. There are direct and specific allegations, as already noted above, levelled against the petitioner by complainant/prosecutrix, which are sufficient to raise grave suspicion against him for the offences punishable under Section 354/354B/323/509 IPC. Moreover, the said allegations are shown to have been reiterated by complainant even in her statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded by ld. Link MM on 14.05.2015. Further, the prosecution is also relying upon statement under Section 161 CrPC of PW 'S', which also prima facie corroborates the allegations appearing in the FIR.

Criminal Revision No. 328/2018 D.O.D.: 13.02.2020

9. In the case titled as 'Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.', (2013) 11 SCC 476, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the question as to whether the allegations levelled in the complaint or in the statements under Section 161 CrPC are true or not, cannot be decided at the stage of framing of charge and same can only be done at the stage of conclusion of the trial. That being the legal position on the point in issue and considering the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the legal position as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by various High Courts, this Court completely agrees with the view taken by ld. Trial Court that prima facie case is made out against petitioner herein for offences punishable under Section 354/354B/323/509 IPC. Consequently, the revision petition sans merit and stands dismissed accordingly. The petitioner is directed to appear before Trial Court/Successor Court on the date already fixed. However, it is hereby made clear that nothing mentioned herein shall tantamount to expression of any opinion on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.