JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 22.05.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), South, Saket Court, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 27/2019 titled 'State vs. Dhanpati @ Dhanwanti' whereby charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 341/323/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') in FIR bearing no. 57/2017 and order dated 14.12.2018 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South, Saket Court, New Delhi discharging the petitioner was set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case, as disclosed from the record and impugned order, are that present petitioner is complainant in FIR bearing no. 606/2014 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi under Sections 376/506 IPC, pending trial. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant „P‟, a practising advocate who had alleged that on 08.02.2017, she had appeared in Saket Courts with her client Rajender Singh who was accused in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 606/2014 in which the present accused is the complainant. It was alleged that after the hearing in the said case, the petitioner/accused had started abusing and misbehaving with the complainant in the court premises, and when she was going towards her chamber along with her client, the petitioner had stopped her and had beaten and threatened her. It was also alleged that the petitioner, after having restrained her, had misbehaved with her and had bitten her hand badly. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner herein for offences punishable under Sections 323/341/506 of IPC.

3. The learned MM, vide order dated 14.12.2018, after perusing the statements of the complainant and witness Rajender Singh, and noting that there was no other public witness, no CCTV footage of the place of incident as well as no medical examination of the complainant to support the case of prosecution, had discharged the accused i.e. petitioner for the alleged offences. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

“...There is no other statement of any other public witness. The complainant refused to get her medical examination done and there was no CCTV camera found at/ near the place of the incident because of which there is no CCTV recording. It is vaguely alleged that the complainant was beaten, threatened by the accused and that the accused had also misbehaved with her badly and had bitten her hand. Even the statement of Rajender u/s 161 of Cr.PC vaguely mentions that there was haatha-pai between the accused and the complainant.

Therefore, based on the material on record, the court is of the view that there is no prima facie case made out against the accused as there are no specific allegations attracting the ingredients of Sections 341/323/506 of IPC against the accused and the accused is discharged...”

4. Thereafter, the State had preferred Criminal Revision No. 27/2019 and vide order dated 22.05.2019, the learned ASJ had set aside the order passed by learned MM, observing that there was sufficient material for the purpose of framing charges against the accused in view of categorical statements of the complainant and witness Rajender Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of this order is reproduced hereinunder:

“7. In the present case, the charge-sheet was filed u/s 341/323/506 IPC. There are some minor variations in the description of incident by the complainant and by the witness Rajender Singh but it is not the case that the two statements are mutually destructive and the allegations made by the complainant are totally unbelievable. When we look at the statement of the complainant and the statement of Rajender Singh, there are allegations of wrongful restraint which creates offence u/s 341 IPC, there are allegations of simple hurt which create offe