The limited scope of inquiry at the stage of framing charges and the prima facie nature of the offences were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter "Cr.P.C.") seeking following reliefs:

i. Setting aside of order dated 19.12.2019 passed in C.R. No. 478/2019 titled `Sunder Kukreja vs. State & Anr., by Addl. Sessions Judge-02 (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter "learned ASJ"); and

ii. Quashing the order on charge dated 28.05.2019 passed in Cr.C. No. 92310 of 2016 titled `State vs. Sunder Kukreja' by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court)-02, South East District, SaketCourts, New Delhi (hereinafter "learned MM") and the charge framed under Sections 354/354D/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC").

2. The present FIR bearing no. 1310/2015 under Sections 354/354D/506 IPC was registered on 19.12.2015 at Police Station Amar Colony, New Delhi on the basis of complaint filed by complainant `R. wherein it was stated that on 19.12.2015, the petitioner, along with his wife and other family members,was present at M-Cinemas, East of Kailash, New Delhi (hereinafter "the premises"), and when the complainant was trying to enter the premises, her way was blocked by several bouncers/guards who were unauthorizedly deployed by the petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner and his men were video-graphing every nook and corner of the premises and also hacking computer systems for which the petitioner had brought an engineer alongwith him. Taking note of the conduct of petitioner, the ccomplainant started following and watching his actions. It is alleged that when the complainant and petitioner were in kitchen, the petitioner pinched the buttock of complainant and pushed her, at which complainant screamed and went outside, and while she was leaving, the petitioner laughed and followed her.Thereafter, petitioner's wife also came and screamed and hurled abuses at the complainant. It is further alleged that petitioner also intimidated and threatened the complainant by saying that he was well-connected with influential people. Besides the details qua the incident dated 19.12.2015, it is further mentioned in the complaint that petitioner and his men had been video-graphing all the movements of complainant including her going to the washroom, and that the petitioner and his men were making the complainant feel uncomfortable through their dirty gazes for more than 7-8 days before the date of present incident.

3. Pursuant to investigation, charge-sheet in the present case was filed on 07.05.2016 under Sections 354/354D/506 of IPC, and charges were framed against the petitioner by the learned MM vide order dated 28.05.2019. The concluding portion of the said order, which is impugned before this Court, reads as under:

"7. I have heard the arguments on point of charge on behalf of accused and learned APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for complainant, carefully gone through the material available on record and I am of the considered view that in the present matter, complainant has stated categorically the manner in which the accused Sunder Kukreja had misbehaved with her by touching her inappropriately and pinching her on her buttock and further that the aforesaid behaviour have been committed by the accused for 7-8 days repeatedly even prior to the date of incident. Further, it is categorically stated by the complainant that accused had extended threats to her by stating of being well connected with people in power. It is further seen that merely a gap of 3-4 hours in lodging of FIR does not fall in the category of delay and in fact the conduct of the complainant of being so shocked that she started crying which is evident from the pictures annexed with the chargesheet, itself shows that the complainant was shattered and outraged by the accused. Further, there is complete corroboration of the complaint filed by the complainant with her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC and therefore, I find no reason to disbelieve the complainant, at this