Ajit Borthakur, J.

This is a criminal revision under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 preferred against the order, dated 17.4.2015, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh in Aalo RS. Case No. 134/2013, under Sections 353/354 IPC, rejecting the Charge-Sheet No. 21/2014, dated 14.5.14 and thereby discharging the accused-respondent No. 1.

2. The victim-petitioner's case, precisely, is that she, who is a Medical Officer in Aalo District Hospital, Arunachal Pradesh, was the complainant/victim in Aalo PS. Case No. 134/2013 against the respondent No. 1, wherein, after completion of investigation, Police submitted the Charge-Sheet, dated 14.5.2014, recommending framing of charges against the said respondent No. 1, under Sections 353/354 IPC. The petitioner has stated that at the relevant time of the incident, the respondent No. 1 was serving as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District and the place of occurrence is situated in West Siang District and further, he was not discharging his official duty. Therefore, the investigating officer was of the opinion that the prosecution sanction under section 197 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was not required to be obtained.

3. The petitioner/victim has contended that on 19.01.2015, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo perused the Charge-Sheet and having found a prima-facie case, took cognizance of the aforesaid Charge-sheeted offences and accordingly, issued summons to the respondent No. 1. On 16.04.2015, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo heard the learned counsel of both the parties and on the following day, that is, on 17.04.2015, passed the impugned order holding that there is no sufficient ground for presuming that the respondent No. 1 herein committed the offences as Charge-Sheeted and therefore, discharged him of the aforesaid charges and set him at liberty with immediate effect.

4. The petitioner has further contended that being the informant-victim, she was not a participant in the proceeding during consideration of charges and as a result, she was unaware about the impugned order. It was only when, the respondent No. 1 initiated civil action against the petitioner seeking damages for implicating him in the aforesaid criminal case and when she received summons in the said civil suit, she became aware of the aforesaid impugned order.

5. Now, by the instant revision petition, which is converted from criminal appeal No. 04 (AP) 2017 as per judgment and order, dated 18.05.2017, passed therein by another Bench of this Court, the petitioner has assailed the above impugned order, inter alia, on the following grounds:-

(i) That, the evidence available with the Charge-Sheet unequivocally demonstrates that the charges recommended against the respondent No. 1 are not groundless and as such, the order of discharge is not tenable in law;

(ii) That, the learned trial court misconstrued and mis-appreciated the evidence available on record in finding fault with the victim and blaming her for creating a situation due to which the respondent No. 1 herein behaved in a particular manner. It was highly inappropriate for the learned Trial Court to find reasons for the offensive behaviour of the respondent No. 1 (thereby rationalising the behaviour of the respondent No. 1) at the stage of framing of charges, under Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C.

(iii) That, the learned trial Court travelled beyond the scope of sections 239 and 240 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and applied a wrong test for arriving at a decision as to whether or not on the basis of evidence available with the Charge-Sheet, the Charges recommended by the investigating officer are required to be framed against the respondent No. 1; and

(iv) That, the learned trial Court misconstrued the ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Union of India v. Prafulla Kr. Samal & Artr, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr., reported in