Crl. Rev. P.187/2015

Page 1 of 4

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Crl. Rev. P.187/2015

BABLI PANDEY ….Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Nayal, Advocate.

Versus

STATE & ANR. …..Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP for the

State with SI Raghuveer, PS-Bindapur.

Mr. Jai Gopal Garg, Advocate for the

respondents No. 2 to 4.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

1.

The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under

Section 397(1)/401/482 Cr.PC assailing the order dated 03.11.2014

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-04, South West, Dwarka

New Delhi in CR No. 61/14 whereby respondents No. 2 to 4 were

discharged

for

the

offence

punishable

under

Sections

341/506/509/34 IPC.

2.

The brief and necessary facts which emerges from record is that

when the petitioner/complainant was returning home, the

respondents No. 2 to 4 obstructed her way, used filthy language

and extended threat to her to which she replied that they were

mentally harassing her and they will face dire consequences, if she

would take any wrong step; that in the evening accused Vipin

along with Kartik and Bharat started abusing and came to the gate

of her house; that accused Vipin tried to enter her house and said

Crl. Rev. P.187/2015

Page 2 of 4

that "Main tujhe kanhi mooh dikhane laayak nahi chodunga"; that

Kartik asked accused Vipin to drag her out of the house and said

that "Isse baalon se khinchkar bahar le aao, iski aisi halat karenge

ki yeh mooh kholne ke laayak nahi rahegi"; that the

petitioner/complainant pushed the Kartik and bolted the gate; that

the petitioner/complainant got injuries in the process.

3.

Vide order dated 01.03.2014, the Metropolitan Magistrate directed

to frame charges under Section 341/506/509/34 IPC against the

respondents No. 2 to 4 and under Section 451/511/409 IPC against

the accused Vipin Kumar. The respondents No. 2 to 4 preferred a

revision petition against the said order. Vide impugned order dated

03.11.2014, the Additional Sessions Judge-04, South West,

Dwarka, New Delhi to set aside the aforesaid order against the

respondents No. 2 to 4. Hence, the present Criminal Revision

Petition.

4.

Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the Trial Court erred in discharging the respondents

No. 2 to 4 at a premature stage as the witnesses were yet to be

examined; that the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction and passed

the impugned order without appreciating the statement of the

petitioner/complainant.

5.

On the other hand supporting the impugned order, learned counsel

for respondents No. 2 to 4 contended that impugned order does not

suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or with material irregularity

in the exercise of jurisdiction vested upon the Appellate Court to

decide revision petition so as to warrant any interference by this

Court.

Crl. Rev. P.187/2015

Page 3 of 4

6.

I have given my considered thought to the submissions raised by

counsel for parties and perused material available on record.

7.

Respondents No. 2 to 4 have been discharged from the offences

punishable under Section 341/506/509 IPC.

8.

To constitute a person for the offence punishable under Section

341 IPC, it must be established that there was a momentary

restriction on the complainant and the complainant was obstructed

from proceeding along a particular direction. The necessary and

essential ingredients to book a person for the offence punishable

under Section 506 IPC is that the threat extended to the

complainant must be intentional and in order to constitute a case

for the offence punishable under Section 509IPC, there must be a

woman whose modesty has been outraged, including the privacy of

a woman, utters any word, makes any sound or ges