Criminal intimidation requires specific threats intended to induce alarm; general expressions of sympathy do not establish the basis for charges under relevant sections of IPC.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant revision petition under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") has been filed by petitioners against the impugned order dated 27.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge ("ASJ"), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in SC No. 85/2018 whereby learned ASJ was pleased to frame the charge against the petitioners under Sections 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no. 2/prosecutrix, an FIR bearing no. 130/2015, was registered at Police Station ("P.S.") Mansarover Park, North-East District, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 376/366 of IPC. It was alleged in the FIR that on 20.10.2011, respondent no. 2 was abducted by the son of petitioners i.e., Pranav Mishra from Delhi and her took prosecutrix to Kedernath, Uttarakhand. It is alleged that complainant was forced by accused Pranav Mishra to have sexual intercourse with him. It was further alleged that till the time of registration of the above- mentioned FIR, accused Pranav Mishra repeatedly forced himself upon the complainant and committed rape upon her at several places i.e., at Kedarnath (Uttarakhand), Mathura, Vrindavan, Haridwar, Agra, at his office in Daryaganj, Delhi, at his house in Vasundhara, Ghaziabad etc., without her consent. It was further alleged that prior to the registration of above-mentioned FIR, accused Pranav Mishra and petitioners in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant to defame her and kill her which caused an alarm in her mind.

3. Learned Counsel for petitioners states that learned Trial Court has committed error in framing of charges without appreciating the fact that complainant nowhere alleged any allegations against the petitioners in the above-mentioned FIR. It is further stated by learned counsel for petitioners that learned Trial Court has failed to consider the complete statement of prosecutrix which was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C as well as statement given before the Counsellor CIC and in her Original complaint on the basis of which above- mentioned FIR was registered and without going through the material on record have framed the charge under Sections 506/34 IPC against the petitioners.

4. It is further stated by learned Counsel for petitioners that learned Trial Court failed to consider that even the Investigating Officer (IO) has not collected any material on record qua the petitioners in respect of the offence under Sections 506/34 IPC and without finding iota of averments in the chargesheet, the charge has been wrongly framed against the petitioners. Further, it was stated that learned Trial Court even failed to consider the orders dated 12.03.2015 and 25.03.2015 passed by learned ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in which it was observed that the role assigned qua the petitioners while dealing their bail applications u/s 438 Cr.P.C. and without application of Judicial mind has framed the charges in a routine manner.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State states that it is a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 506/34 of IPC against the petitioners as petitioners along with accused Pranav Mishra had taken the complainant into confidence by saying that they accept her as their daughter-in-law and accused Pranav Mishra took the benefit of that trust while committing the rape upon th