Delhi High Court: In a criminal petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.PC.’), challenging the order dated 14-07-2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03, Central-District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, (‘Additional Sessions Judge’), Navin Chawla*, J., while dismissing the present petition held that the words spoken by petitioner was referring to victim’s inner-wear accompanied by various other gestures. Those were clearly a matter of trial and same could not have been determined by the Trial Court at the stage of framing of the charge by discharging the petition. Therefore, The Additional Sessions Judge rightly intervened in the matter and had directed framing of charges under Sections 506, 509, 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the petitioner.
Background:
In a present case, the FIR was filed for the offence under Sections 506, 509 and 34 of IPC on the complaint of the victim, who was a gymnastic trainee. Victim stated that on 02-09-2014, the petitioner being a gymnastic coach along with a co-accused mentally harassed her by making remarks about her inner wear, made fun of her by uttering words, made several gestures towards victim and continued to make fun of her in abusive slang which offended victim’s dignity and outraged the modesty. When the victim approached Chief Coach to file the complaint, the petitioner instead of apologizing for his conduct, threatened the victim by saying ‘Tune galat aadmi se panga liya hai, tujhe to mai batunga’.
The aggrieved victim then moved to the Metropolitan Magistrate, the said Court discharged the petitioner from charges under Sections 506, 509, 34 of the IPC. The victim then challenged the decision of Metropolitan Magistrate through a Revision Petition. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the said Revision Petition and held that there was a prima facie evidence to proceed under Sections 506, 509, 34 of the IPC against the petitioner.. The Additional Sessions Judge directed for the Trial Court to proceed with the proceedings in accordance with law.
Analysis:
The Court after perusal of contentions submitted and facts, reiterated the judgment of the Supreme Court, State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, in which the Court said that, “what is required while considering framing of charge and discharge, is only the satisfaction of the court as to whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to stand trial with the material available.” The Court then was of the view that “At the stage of framing charge/considering the application filed by the accused seeking discharge, the detailed analysis of the evidence is not to be carried out by the Court. The only test to be applied is whether there is sufficient cause made out by the prosecution to proceed against the accused.”
The Court while mentioning Section 509 of the IPC pointed out that “intention” considered as an essential ingredient while assessing insult done to outrage the modesty of any women. Such intention is to be assessed on the basis of numerous factors including the act itself, the context in which the action occurred, choice of words or gestures, surrounding circumstances, the background of the accused, the complainant’s perspective, etc.
The Court noted that, victim already stated that the words spoken by the petitioner were referring to victim’s inner-wear and were accompanied with various gestures. These were clearly a matter of trial and same could not have been determined by the Trial Court at the stage of framing of the charges by discharging the petitioner.
The Court further stated that, “The Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly intervened in the matter and has directed framing of charge under Sections 506/509/34 of the IPC against the petitioner.”
[Manoj Rana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3906, Order Dated: 24-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Shakti Chaturvedi, Advocate.
For Respondents: Shoaib Haider, APP; Akash Awana, Advocate, SI Mohd Intzar, PS IP Estate Delhi; Kunal Mittal, Shiv Dutt Kaushik, Advocates
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
