Delhi High Court
Babli Pandey vs State And Anr. on 3 November, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. Rev. P.187/2015
Order reserved on : 26th October, 2017
Order pronounced on : 03rd November, 2017
BABLI PANDEY ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Nayal, Advocate.
Versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP for the
State with SI Raghuveer, PS-Bindapur.
Mr. Jai Gopal Garg, Advocate for the
respondents No. 2 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under
Section 397(1)/401/482 Cr.PC assailing the order dated 03.11.2014
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-04, South West, Dwarka
New Delhi in CR No. 61/14 whereby respondents No. 2 to 4 were
discharged for the offence punishable under Sections
341/506/509/34 IPC.
2. The brief and necessary facts which emerges from record is that
when the petitioner/complainant was returning home, the
respondents No. 2 to 4 obstructed her way, used filthy language
and extended threat to her to which she replied that they were
mentally harassing her and they will face dire consequences, if she
would take any wrong step; that in the evening accused Vipin
along with Kartik and Bharat started abusing and came to the gate
of her house; that accused Vipin tried to enter her house and said
Crl. Rev. P.187/2015 Page 1 of 4
that "Main tujhe kanhi mooh dikhane laayak nahi chodunga"; that
Kartik asked accused Vipin to drag her out of the house and said
that "Isse baalon se khinchkar bahar le aao, iski aisi halat karenge
ki yeh mooh kholne ke laayak nahi rahegi"; that the
petitioner/complainant pushed the Kartik and bolted the gate; that
the petitioner/complainant got injuries in the process.
3. Vide order dated 01.03.2014, the Metropolitan Magistrate directed
to frame charges under Section 341/506/509/34 IPC against the
respondents No. 2 to 4 and under Section 451/511/409 IPC against
the accused Vipin Kumar. The respondents No. 2 to 4 preferred a
revision petition against the said order. Vide impugned order dated
03.11.2014, the Additional Sessions Judge-04, South West,
Dwarka, New Delhi to set aside the aforesaid order against the
respondents No. 2 to 4. Hence, the present Criminal Revision
Petition.
4. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the Trial Court erred in discharging the respondents
No. 2 to 4 at a premature stage as the witnesses were yet to be
examined; that the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction and passed
the impugned order without appreciating the statement of the
petitioner/complainant.
5. On the other hand supporting the impugned order, learned counsel
for respondents No. 2 to 4 contended that impugned order does not
suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or with material irregularity
in the exercise of jurisdiction vested upon the Appellate Court to
decide revision petition so as to warrant any interference by this
Court.
Crl. Rev. P.187/2015 Page 2 of 4
6. I have given my considered thought to the submissions raised by
counsel for parties and perused material available on record.
7. Respondents No. 2 to 4 have been discharged from the offences
punishable under Section 341/506/509 IPC.
8. To constitute a person for the offence punishable under Section
341 IPC, it must be established that there was a momentary
restriction on the complainant and the complainant was obstructed
from proceeding along a particular direction. The necessary and
essential ingredients to book a person for the offence punishable
under Section 506 IPC is that the threat extended to the
complainant must be intentional and in order to constitute a case
for the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC, there must be a
woman whose modesty has been outraged, including the privacy of
a woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture etc.
9. The petitioner/complainant in her complaint made following
allegations against the respondents No. 2 to 4. The said contents of
the FIR/complaint are reiterated, which reads as under:
"xxxxxxMadam, kal mere saath jinka gair-kanooni
makaan ki shikayat maine aapko ki thi unki aurton
ne mujhe apne kaam se aate samay (Kusum,
Pushpa, Parmeshwari) ne raaste me rok liya ve
gaali galoch dene lagi ve mujhe maarne ki dhamki
dene lagi jab maine kaha aap mujhe teen mahine
se mentally harassment kar rahi hain kanhi maine
koi galat kadam utha diya toh aapko pareshani ho
jaayegi. Uske baad mein ghar aa gayi.
Crl. Rev. P.187/2015 Page 3 of 4
10. The allegations levelled against the respondents No. 2 to 4 are
general in nature. Perusal of the complaint shows that no such act
is attributed to the respondents No. 2 to 4 making them liable to be
prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC.
Mere threat extended by an accused without an intention to cause
alarm to the complainant, does not amount to an act punishable
under Section 506 IPC. No such language or act has been made
out in the complainant to book the respondents No. 2 to 4 for the
offence punishable under Section 509 IPC.
11. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the reasons
recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order, do not
suffer from any illegality whatsoever and accordingly, the present
Criminal Revision Petition shall stand dismissed.
12. Order accordingly.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
NOVEMBER 03, 2017
gr
