This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the V-Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, to frame a charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.125 of 2012 and to proceed with trial of the case in accordance with law.

2. The petitioner is the de facto complainant in the above case. She lodged a report with the Station House Officer, Arundalpet P.S., against respondents No.1 and 2 (A1 and A2), who are father and son, alleging as under :

The petitioner has been running a Boys Hostel in the name and style of 'Sri Laxmi Boys Hostel' in Naidupet, Guntur, in a terraced house belonging to A1 on a monthly rent of Rs.22,000/-. A1 developed sore eye against the petitioner and therefore enhanced the rent to Rs.44,000/- from August 2011 onwards and the petitioner has been paying the same. However, the accused again started harassing her to increase the said rent. On 18.12.2011 at about 11.30 hours the accused came to her and demanded for increasing the rent again, otherwise to vacate the premises. Thus demanding, the respondents/accused uttered filthy language and the 2nd respondent caught hold of her turf, threw her on the ground, kicked her and beat her. Thereafter, the petitioner has been receiving threatening calls from different numbers and hence, the petitioner sought for action against the accused.

3. Basing on the said report, the police registered a case in Crime No.441 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 509 and 506 of I.P.C., and filed chargesheet against respondent Nos.1 and 2 accordingly. The trial Court also framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 509 and 506 of I.P.C., and proceeded with the trial. The petitioner was also examined as PW1. Later, she represented to the Magistrate that she was advised by her Counsel that the offences alleged, in fact, attract the penal provisions under Section 354 of I.P.C., and, therefore, she orally insisted upon the Magistrate to frame a charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C., and thereafter to proceed with the trial, as she is a victim in terms of Section 2(wa) of the Amended Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected her request on the ground that there is no written application by the Public Prosecutor and held that the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C., is not made out from the case record. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner came up with the present criminal petition.

4. Now the point for determination in the criminal petition is whether the learned Magistrate is right in declining to frame a charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C.?

5. Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows :

"354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.–Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner – de facto complainant relied on a decision of the Supreme Court report in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, 1996 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1 (S.C.) = AIR 1996 SC 309, in support of his contention and argued that in the circumstances of the present case the learned Magistrate ought to have framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C., also against the accused.

7. In the said case, the alleged act of a top most official of State Police in slapping senior lady IAS Officer on her posterior in the presence of gathering of elite of Society was questioned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C., and the relevant portion of the said decision reads as under :

"In State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63, a question arose whether a female child o