The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for exceptional circumstances to interfere with an order of acquittal and the limitations of the High Court's revisional power.

Sunita Gupta, J.

1. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 26th October, 2012 passed by Learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, In-charge (South & South East), Saket, New Delhi whereby the judgment passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court dated 24th October, 2011 acquitting the accused in case FIR 346/2006 PS Badarpur u/s 506/509 IPC was upheld.

2. Petitioner No.2 is the daughter of petitioner No.1. They were residing in the neighbourhood of respondent No.2. On 23rd February, 2004, a quarrel had taken place between petitioner No.1 and mother of respondent No.2 on a trivial issue of disposal of garbage as according to the petitioner mother of respondent No.2 Rajwati had thrown garbage in front of house of petitioners. When an altercation was going on between the two, respondent No.2 came out of the room, abused the petitioners in filthy language and threatened to rape petitioner No.2. He also ran after petitioner No.2. In order to save herself she entered her house. On these allegations, the aforesaid FIR was registered.

3. After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Respondent No.2 was put to trial on the basis of charges framed on 27th September, 2008 to which he pleaded not guilty.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined in all five witnesses including the petitioners. After the prosecution evidence was closed, statement of respondent No.2 was recorded under Section 281 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the case of prosecution and alleged his false implication due to past enmity. He, however, stated that a quarrel had taken place between his mother and petitioner No.1. He examined one defence witness Satayapal Sharma in support of his defence.

5. Vide judgment dated 24th October, 2011, learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted respondent No.2 of the charges levelled against him observing that the complainant took contrary stands in her original complaint dated 23rd February, 2006 and subsequent complaint dated 26th April, 2006. Moreover, both the petitioners had given contrary versions in their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as well as deposition in the Court. Not only that, none of the witnesses used the specific words used by the accused against them. At the time of quarrel, the accused was inside the house. Moreover, although the incident had taken place in the street, however, no public witness was examined. There was delay of 2 months in registration of FIR. In order to invoke the provisions of Section 509 IPC, it was incumbent to reproduce specific words used by the accused which were not detailed by either of the witnesses. Even on the factual matrix of the case, offence under Section 506 IPC was not proved as mere threat does not fall within the definition of criminal intimidation unless it is proved that the threat given by the accused caused an alarm to the witness.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant preferred Crl. Appeal No.14/2012 u/s 372 Cr.P.C. before learned District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Incharge, Saket, New Delhi. The same was dismissed by observing that the fate of the case apparently rests on the version of PW3 & PW4. It was essential for the witnesses to narrate the actual words used so that the Court can form an opinion as to whether language was filthy or abusive or amounting to improper expression designed “to insult the modesty of a woman” within the ambit of penal clause under Section 509 IPC which was lacking. Similarly, the allegations regarding criminal intimidation were not consistent. Further reference was made to the settled legal proposition regarding the scope of appeal against an order of acquittal by referring to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (2) Crimes 103 (SC)