Intent to cause alarm must be substantiated by specific evidence and details to establish claims of criminal intimidation and insulting modesty under IPC Sections 506 and 509.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that the accused was terminated from service due to his bad habits. On 22.06.2008, she along with her sister at around 9:00 PM., was walking in the park, when the accused, Rajan Khurana along with his wife Sanjeevan Prakash, came and started abusing and using unparliamentary language, against them. It is alleged that the accused in a loud tone, claimed that he was a “gunda” having links with gunda elements and threatened to kill her and her husband. The Petitioner and her family members have been living under constant threat and fear from the Accused/Respondent No.2.

3. Petitioner lodged a Complaint against Respondent No.2 at P.S. Inderpuri, but no action was taken. She then filed a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C . along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C . and the Ld. MM, vide Order dated 06.08.2008, directed the police to register an FIR. Consequently, FIR No. 99/2008 under Sections 506 /509/34 IPC was registered against Respondent No.2.

4. Thereafter, Chargesheet was filed. After taking cognizance, summons were issued against Respondent No.2. The Ld. MM, vide Order dated 03.09.2011, discharged Respondent No.2 by observing that the FIR No. 99/2008 disclosed only the use of abusive or unparliamentary language without specifying the actual words or terminology allegedly used by Respondent No.2. A bare verbal threat, without any immediate effect, was held to be insufficient to attract the ingredients of Section 506 IPC . The Ld. MM also referred to the Complaint dated 02.07.2008 made by Sh. R.S., husband of the Petitioner, to the Director, NBPGR, New Delhi, in which only the general conduct of the accused was mentioned, with no specific reference to the alleged incident of 22.06.2008. Further, it is observed that the Petitioner has not explained why the present Complaint was lodged on 05.07.2008 in respect of an incident alleged to have occurred on 22.06.2008, which assumes significance as an earlier Complaint had already filed by Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioner’s husband on 28.06.2008. This was not disclosed by the Petitioner in any of her Complaints. The Ld. MM thus, held that there is no material on record to proceed against the Accused who was accordingly, discharged.

5. Aggrieved by the Order dated 03.09.2011 by which Respondent No.2 was discharged, the Petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision before the Ld. ASJ, which got dismissed vide Order dated 28.04.2012.

6. Aggrieved by the Order dated 28.04.2012 of Ld. ASJ, the Petitioner had filed the Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C . on the ground that in upholding the Order of the Ld. MM, the Ld. ASJ had wrongly relied upon the Status Report which was not part of the Chargesheet. This Court vide Order dated 16.03.2017, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, remanded the matter back to the Ld. ASJ for reconsideration only on this ground.

7. After hearing the matter afresh, Ld. ASJ, vide Order dated 11.05.2018, again upheld the Order dated 03.09.2011 of the Ld. MM, discharging Respondent No.2, by observing that that there was no substantive evidence to establish the charges against Respondent No.2, as alleged by the Petitioner.

8. Aggrieved by the Order dated 11.05.2018, present Petition has been filed on the grounds that the Orders of the Ld. MM and the Ld. ASJ are bad in law being devoid of facts and legal reasoning and have committed grave error in discharging the Respondent No.2.

9. I