The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of framing of charges, a strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offense is sufficient for the charge to be framed. Additionally, specific ingredients are required to prove the offenses under the mentioned sections.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed under section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved with the order, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Mandsaur in special case No. 29/2014 on 18-6-2014 whereby charges under section 354-A(1), 354-D(1) and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act") have been framed against the petitioner.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that the complainant made a complaint against the petitioner alleging that she belongs to scheduled caste and posted as a Sub Excise Inspector in the Office of District Excise, Mandsaur. On 7-9-2013 petitioner met her in Office premises and told that what she did by making complaint against him and addressing her "Chamarin". Petitioner also said that he would teach her lesson and threatened to defame her blaming her to be characterless. It is alleged that earlier also on 25-5-2013 petitioner has committed "Aíbrb haH$V" with her and a complaint was made by the complainant to the Senior Officers and the matter was under inquiry, however no action has been taken. It is further alleged that the complainant is feeling unsafe, therefore, prayed for taking action against the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid complaint Crime No. 74/2013 under sections 354-A(1), 354-D(1) and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been registered against the petitioner. After due investigation charge-sheet has been filed before the Special Judge. The learned Special Judge after having considered the material placed before him, framed the charges under section 354(1), 354-D(1) and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Being aggrieved this revision petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to law and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that there is no prima facie material against the petitioner for framing the charges under section 354-A(1), 354-D(1) and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is urged that if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence. It is submitted that charges has been framed regarding the incident on 23-5-2013 as well as 7-9-2013 which is not permissible in law, hence prayed for quashing of charges.

4. Learned Government Advocate for respondent/State on the other hand supported the impugned order of framing of charge submitting that prima facie there is sufficient material to frame the charge against the petitioner.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the record. The complainant has submitted a written complaint dated 10-9-2013 in the Jan Sunwai Programme of S.P., Mandsaur, which is in her hand-writing and reads as under :-

6. The learned trial Court framed the charges which reads as under :-

7. In the complaint dated 10-9-2013 the allegations made against petitioner the about uttering the word ""~X_me, ZrM, M_maZ'' and with regard to incident dated 23-5-2013 except doing ""Aíbrb haH$V'' nothing is mentioned, however, in her case-diary statement which was recorded on 30-11-2013, complainant has stated that on 23-5-2013 Kedar Sharma called her on Mobile Phone saying that

8. In the aforesaid statement nothing has been mentioned with regard to incident dated 7-9-2013.

9. In the statement dated 18-12-2013 complainant has stated that petitioner said that _wPo Vwåhmao {b`o Hw$N> \$sqbJ Am ahr h¡ Am¡a Eogm H$aVo hþE _oao gmW Aíbrb ~mV| H$aVo hþE emar[aH$ g§~§Y ~ZmZo H$s noeH$e H$s Ed§ Eogm Zht H$aZo na ~XZm_ H$aZo H$s Y_H$s Xr Wr& gmW hr H$hZo bJo {H$ _oao {d^mJ