IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of grave suspicion, not mere suspicion, for framing charges, as well as the importance of considering contradictory statements of the complainant.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) - This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.') challenging the Order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-04, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `ASJ') in Criminal Revision No. 107/2021, titled Ajit Singh Chauhan v. Government of NCT of Delhi, dismissing the said Revision Petition.

2. The petitioner, by way of the above Revision Petition had challenged the Order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-01), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned `Trial Court') in the criminal case arising out of FIR 239/2017 registered at Police Station: Alipur, Rohini District, Delhi, framing charges under Sections 498A/406/323/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, `IPC') against the petitioner herein.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the course of his submissions, confines the challenge in the present petition only to the charges framed under Sections 323/509/34 IPC.

4. The above FIR was registered inter alia on an allegation that on 06.12.2015 at about 4:00 PM, the complainant along with her father had gone to her matrimonial home. It is alleged that the moment they entered the matrimonial home, the complainant's father-in-law, that is, the petitioner herein, abused the complainant and her father in the `dirtiest language' and threatened to get them killed if they ever approached them. It is alleged that the petitioner then prompted the complainant's sister-in-law to beat her and throw her out of the house. In the FIR it is stated that the complainant was then beaten by her sister-in-law and by the petitioner. The complainant states that on her way back she got herself medically examined for the injuries resulting from the beatings given `by my sister-in-law Anjali alias Sweety'. Based on the said allegations, the charges also under Sections 323/509/34 of the IPC have been framed against the petitioner herein.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prior to the filing of the complaint, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, the complainant had filed a complaint with the SHO, Police Station: Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, wherein, she had inter alia described the same incident of 06.12.2015, as under:

"On 06/12/2015, I had gone to my matrimonial home with my father and at about 04:00 PM when I entered my matrimonial home, my father-in-law and mother-in-law abused me in most filthy language and prompted my sister-in-law Sweety alais Anjali to beat me and I was beaten up by my sister-in-law Anjali. They threw me out of my matrimonial home.

On my way back home, I got myself medically examined for the injuries resulting from beatings given by my sister-in law. Copy of the MLC bearing no. B5636/15 dated 06/12/2015 issued by GTB Hospital, Dilshad Garden is attached herewith."

(Emphasis Supplied)

6. He submits that even in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., though she tried to implicate her husband in the alleged beating, she did not name the petitioner as the person who had given her any beating.

7. He submits that, therefore, clearly the allegations of beating were against the sister-in-law Anjali alias Sweety, and not against the petitioner herein. He submits that Anjali alias Sweety has already been discharged of the said offence by the learned ASJ by way of the Impugned Order itself. He submits that the said Order has not been challenged either by the State or by the complainant.

8. As far as the charge under Section 509 IPC is concerned, he submits that barring a vague allegation of the petitioner having abused the complainant, there are no specific details of the same given in the FIR or even in the chargesheet. He submits that a vague charge, therefore, cannot be framed against the petitioner.

9. On the other hand, the learned APP and the