(A.B. Chaudhari, J.)

1. By this criminal application, applicant seeks quashment of first information report and chargesheet in Criminal Case No. 212/2010 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 6th Court, Gondia as well as order rejecting application for not committing the case to Sessions Court under Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. We have heard Dr. De, learned Counsel for the applicant. Dr. De vehemently argued that perusal of first information report and chargesheet even remotely does not make out any offence under Sections 365, 366, 354 and 511 of Indian Penal Code. In the alternative, he submitted that at any rate no offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code is at all made out in the light of ingredients required by Section 354 of Indian Penal Code since there is no allegation of force/criminal force being used by the applicant against complainant. Learned Counsel Dr. De contended that for attracting Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, as per definition of `force' under Section 349 of Indian Penal Code, an overt act in the nature of physical contact would be necessary. Perusal of the first information report so also chargesheet, according to learned Counsel Dr. De, does not show any such thing and the only allegations are that the applicant used to make SMS, telephonic calls and open offer during meetings with her for fulfilling sexual demands in lieu of exempting her from payment of fees. He then submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and, therefore, entire chargesheet is required to be quashed.

3. Learned Counsel Dr. De further contended that there is an order made by the learned Magistrate, which amounts to shirking of duty by him by not accepting the application for not committing the case to Sessions Court under Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He, therefore, submitted that the said order is also wrong and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, Shri Uikey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1, opposed the criminal application and submitted that the chargesheet having been filed, the applicant should go for trial rather than prosecuting the present criminal application and the present criminal application is premature. He prayed for dismissal of the criminal application.

5. We have gone through the criminal application, first information report as well as statements of witnesses. From perusal of the first information report as well as statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, we find that there is no allegation about kidnapping within the meaning of Sections 365 and 366 of Indian Penal Code. We also find that there is not even a remote allegation against the applicant that there was any kidnapping made or even attempted to be made. That being so, we are satisfied that no offence punishable under Sections 365, 366 and 511 of Indian Penal Code is at all made out. We, therefore, hold that the offences punishable under Sections 365, 366 and 511 of Indian Penal Code in the chargesheet will have to be removed.

6. Insofar as offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, Section 354 reads thus:

“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 thereby 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.”

The above definition shows that requirement is of use of criminal force in the context of arguments made by learned Counsel Dr. De. Dr. De invited our attention to Section 349 and submitted that first Section 349 defines what is force and thereafter Section 350 defines what is criminal force. His submission is that definition of force in Section 349 must be read in Section 350 as sine qua non for finding out what is criminal force. He also r