JUDGMENT

M.S. Jawalkar, J. - Heard Mr. Almeida, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gaurish Nagvenker, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

2. By consent and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, this Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. The present Petition is filed challenging the order in Criminal Revision Application No. 99/2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and in Criminal Case No. 161/2017/C passed by the learned JMFC, Panaji.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is no case at all made out to frame charge under Section 509 of IPC. It is submitted that the impugned order of the learned JMFC and that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is illegal and perverse. It is contended that there is no complaint, on the basis of which, the charge is framed. It is submitted that the learned JMFC discharged the petitioner from the charge under Section 143 read with Section 149 of IPC. In view thereof, the learned JMFC ought to have discharged the petitioner from the charge of offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision