ORDER

1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 6.5.2024, passed in CRA No.227/2023, by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas whereby, the learned Judge has affirmed the order dated 25.8.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dewas in Criminal Case No.1392 of 2020, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the petitioner under section 354, 354(A)-(1) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 - 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 12.9.2020, when the complainant/victim was selling flowers in her shop, at that time, the present petitioner came and caught hold of her hand, and threatened her to come with her and also abused her. She released her hand and at that time, her elder sister also came and thus, the petitioner ran away from the spot threatening them of dire consequences, if she lodged the report. After the chargesheet was filed, the learned Judge of the trial Court, after recording the evidence, has convicted the petitioner as aforesaid vide judgement dated 25.8.2023, and in the appeal preferred before the District Appellate Court, the judgement of the Trial Court has been affirmed vide judgement dated 6.5.2024. Hence, this revision.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the learned Judges of the District Court have erred in not properly appreciating the evidence as admittedly, the MLC is also silent, and apart from that, the elder sister of the victim, PW-2 has also clearly stated that she was not present at the time of the incident and also that she does not know the present petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that there was no reason for the elder sister not to support the complaint made by her younger sister. It is also submitted that otherwise also, during the course of trial, an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. was also filed for compounding the offences, which has already been allowed vide order dated 20.7.2023, in respect of offences under Section 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC, however, since offence under Section 354-A of IPC is a not compoundable, it has been rejected in respect of the aforesaid offence only. It is also submitted that the petitioner is lodged in jail since 6.5.2024. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned judgement be set aside, and the petitioner be acquitted.

5. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that looking to the deposition of the victim, and concurrent finding of facts, no case for interference is made out.

6. Heard. Before this court proceeds further with the merits of the case it would be germane to refer to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, reported as (2018) 8 SCC 165, defining the scope High Court’s powers u/s.401 of Cr.P.C., which is limited to satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. The relevant paras of the same read as under:-

“12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of sections 397/401 CrPC and the ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 275] , while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court this Court has laid down the following: (SCC pp. 454-55, para 5)

“5. … In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be e