The judgment emphasizes the requirement of grave suspicion for an accused to face trial and the need for specific details and evidence to support allegations.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.41/2013 under Sections 506/509 of the IPC, Police Station Paschim Vihar and also impugns charges framed against the petitioner on 18.11.2013 under Section 506(1) and 509 IPC.

2. Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 that she is a teacher and the principal of the College who is also the brother of her father-in-law usually talked dirty with her on account of which she used to feel ashamed and usually he threatened her that in case she disclosed to anybody about his conduct, she would have to face the consequences of the same.

3. On the subject complaint, FIR was registered and consequently charge sheet filed and on perusal of the same, Trial Court has framed charges, against the petitioner, under Section 506(1) and 509 of the IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the charge framed is vague and not in accordance with the mandate of Section 212 of the Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the allegations are vague and the complaint is motivated as there was a history of dispute between the petitioner and his brother, the father-in-law of the complainant. Further, it is contended that the allegations do not raise any suspicion against the petitioner of having committed any offence under Section 506 or 509 of the IPC. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others, 2007 (12) SCC 1 and Mr. Robert John D'Souza & Ors. Vs. Mr. Stephen V. Gomes & Anr. 2015(9) SCC 96.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the complaint made by the prosecutrix shows commission of the offence under Sections 506 and 509 and even if the charge framed is vague, evidence during trial would prove the allegations and the consequent guilt of the petitioner.

6. It would be expedient to refer to the FIR lodged on the complaint of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix in her complaint has alleged as under:-

“The Principal of my college Dr. Hari Kishan Sharma s/o Shyam Sunder Sharma r/o D-16/128, Sec - 3 Rohini, who is my brother of father-in-law (Chachiya Sasur) in relation too, used to talk dirty with me for which I felt ashamed of being a woman. He also used to threaten me stating that if I ever told anything about his wrongdoings to anybody, then I will have to face dire consequences. A suitable legal action be taken against him.”

7. It is an admitted position that apart from what is stated in the FIR there is no evidence or supplementary statement given by the prosecutrix detailing as to when, where and what was stated by the petitioner. The only allegation is that he used to talk dirty for which she used to feel ashamed. What were the words used, gestures etc. have not been stated by the prosecutrix. Nor is the time, date and place stated by her.

8. The charge framed by the Trial Court on 18.11.2014 is as under:-

CHARGE

“That at an unknown date, place and time prior to 13.02.2013 within the jurisdiction of PS Paschim Vihar, you criminally intimidated the complainant Ms. Asha Rani to face the consequences in case any information is passed over to someone else and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 506(1) IPC and within my cognizance.

Secondly, that at an unknown date, place and time prior to 13.02.2013 within the Jurisdiction of PS Paschim Vihar, you intended to insult the modesty of the complainant, abused her in a filthy language and also made indecent gestures intending that said gestures shall be seen by her and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 509 IPC and within my cognizance.”

9. The charges framed state that “at an unknown date, place and time prior to 13.02.2013......” Charge framed is clearly not in consonance with Section 212 Cr.P.C which mandates that the charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as ar