$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 10.01.2023 Pronounced on: 18.04.2023 + CRL.REV.P. 28/2023 JITENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Mohan, Ms. Nitika Pancholi and Mr. Nishant Madan, Advocates.

versus STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State with SI Manju Yadav, P.S. Tilak Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. The present revision petition filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) impugns the order on charge dated 07.09.2022 and the order framing charge dated 09.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO)- 06,West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 246/2022, whereby charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323/354/506/34/354B/509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) and under Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 28/2023 Page 1 of 12 Digitally Signed Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter ‘POCSO Act’) in case FIR bearing no.

282/2022, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.

2. By way of present petition, the petitioner assails only the charges framed by the learned Trial Court under Section 509 IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act.

3. The case of prosecution is that on 16.02.2022, at about 10:45 AM, when the husband of the complainant/respondent no. 2 was leaving for work, the petitioner‟s wife had stopped him and had started hurling abuses at him. Upon him rejecting to such behaviour, the petitioner‟s wife had started creating a ruckus and had called the petitioner and their daughter downstairs and all of them had abused the complainant‟s husband. It was further alleged by the complainant „RK‟ that upon hearing the commotion, she had gone downstairs where she had seen the petitioner and his family members giving beatings to her husband. She had also alleged that the petitioner had intentionally grabbed her and touched her chest inappropriately while she was trying to save her husband from their clutches, and had also threatened the complainant. Upon receipt of information, the concerned police officials had visited the place of incident where it was disclosed that the families used to reside in the same apartment complex and a quarrel had broken out between them on the issue of parking. Thereafter, all the parties were sent to DUU Hospital for medical examination, subsequent to which, a complaint was submitted by the complainant/respondent no. 2 to the police on the basis of which present FIR was registered under Sections

323/341/354/506/34 IPC.

Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 28/2023 Page 2 of 12 Digitally Signed

4. During the course of investigation, statement of the complainant „RK‟ was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. along with the statements of witnesses „KB‟ and „SG‟ on 25.02.2022 whereby allegations of beating and making obscene gestures were levelled against the petitioner by all of them. Further, „KB‟ in her statement also stated that the petitioner on a prior occasion had misbehaved with her elder daughter i.e. respondent no. 3/minor victim. Thereafter, the statement of minor victim „B‟, aged around 8 years, was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 21.03.2022 whereby she had stated that on some prior occasion, while she had been cycling in the parking area of apartment complex in presence of her mother who was sitting near the staircase, the petitioner had come downstairs and had made obscene gestures towards her by pulling the zip of his pants and had winked his eye. Thus, in view of the statement of child victim, offences under Section 12 POCSO Act and Section 509 IPC were added by the police.

5. After hearing the arguments on point of charge, learned Trial Court, vide order dated 07.09.2022, framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 323/354/506/34/354B/509 IPC a