Fir was lodged by the second respondent alleging that on

14/03/2019, at around 12.00 pm, when the second respondent

came out of the family court, the advocate of her husband came

to her and picked up a quarrel with the second respondent by

stating that why she is not settling the matter but continuing the

proceedings in G&W No.29/2016 and at that point of time, there

were exchange of words during which it is alleged that her

husband's advocate, his junior, petitioner No.1 and petitioner

3

No.2 abused her in filthy language and assaulted her, pulled by

holding her hand and pulled her clothes.

2.

The Police during the course of investigation

recorded the further statement of the second respondent and

also the complainant's witnesses. The police after investigation

filed a charge sheet against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4

for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 354B, 504

and 34 of IPC alleging that on 14.03.2019, when the

complainant came out of the Court at that point of time, the

husband's counsel i.e., accused No.1 without any reasons picked

up a quarrel and stated that as to why she is continuing the case

against her husband and asked her to settle the matter and

when she asked the accused No.1 as to why he was behaving

rudely with her, he abused her in filthy language and thereafter

all the accused pulled her hand and assaulted her and also pulled

her clothes.

3.

Smt. Pramila S. Nesargi, learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioners' counsel would make the following

submissions:

4

i.

In the absence of any specific allegation that the

alleged injury on the neck of the second respondent was caused

due to the assault made by the petitioners-accused, the filing of

the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 323 of

IPC is impermissible.

ii.

The dispute between the parties arises out of the

marital discord between the second respondent and the son of

the petitioners-accused who is the husband of the second

respondent.

iii.

The alleged incident has taken place at about 12

noon and the second respondent has not brought to the notice of

the Court concerned with regard to the alleged incident which

clearly implies that the FIR was lodged as an afterthought to

falsely implicate the petitioners-accused and with revengeful

intent.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.2 would make the following submissions:

5

i.

The charge sheet material clearly discloses the

commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners-

accused.

ii.

The charge sheet material clearly discloses that by

pulling her clothes in a public place, the petitioners have

outraged the modesty of the second respondent which is an

offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. In support,

reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of

Tarkeshwar Sahu v State of Bihar reported in 2006 (8) SCC 560

(Paras-39 to 43).

5.

The FIR and the charge sheet material clearly

discloses the commission of the offences alleged against the

petitioners -accused and this Court cannot hold a mini trial and

go into the genuineness of the allegation in exercise of its power

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In support, reliance is placed on

the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaptan

Singh -vs- State of UP reported in 2021 9 SCC 35 and in the

case of Rishipal v State of U.P., reported in (2014) 3 SCC (CRI)

17.

6

6.

I have examined the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7.

The only allegation in the FIR lodged by the second

respondent against the petitioners No.3 an 4 is that they along

with the other accused held her by their hands and pushed and

dragged her around and also they held the neck of the second

respondent and chocked and pushed and pulled her clothes

again and again and outraged her modesty.

8.

The wound certificate produced along with the

charge sheet discloses that the second respondent has suffered

multiple small abrasions over t