Dr. Vijay Shankar vs State & Anr on 3 August, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1369 / 2015
Dr. Kiran V Brar w/o Dr.Rajneesh V Brar, r/o D8 Nagnechi Scheme
A Pawanpuri, Bikaner.

—-Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan.

2. Dr.Vijay Shanker s/o Premratan, b/c Purohit, r/io Mohta
Chowk, Bikaner.

—-Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 497 / 2016
;kph
MkW- fot; ‘kadj iq Jh izsejru iqjksfgr] tkfr iqjksfgr] fuoklh eksgrk pkSd]
chdkusjA

cuke

v;kphx.k %

1- LVsV vkWQ jktLFkkuA

2- MkW- fdj.k oh cjkj ifRu MkW- jtuh’k oh cjkj] lhfu;j izksQslj]
QkjekdkWyksth] fuoklh Mh 8] ukx.ksph Ldhe,] iouiqjh] chdkusjA

__
For Petitioner Dr.Kiran V Brar : Mr.Kailash Khatri.
For Respondent Dr.Vijay Shanker : Mr.MS Purohit.

For State : Mr.OP Rathi, PP.

__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
03/08/2017

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
(2 of 3)
[ CRLR-1369/2015]

material available on record.

These two cross revisions have been preferred by the

complainant Dr.Kiran V Brar and the accused Dr.Vijay Shanker

being aggrieved of the order dated 30.9.2015 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases),

Bikaner in revision no.27/2014 whereby, the revision preferred by

the accused Dr.Vijay Shanker against the order of cognizance

dated 25.8.2014 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. No.3, Bikaner

was partly accepted and the order of cognizance was set aside to

the extent of offence under Section 354 IPC and instead, the trial

Court was directed to proceed against the accused for the offence

under Section 352 IPC.

Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the respective parties and after going through the

READ  In Re: Deepika Samanta-vs-Unknown on 12 September, 2003

orders under challenge, I am of the firm opinion that the

allegations set out by the complainant in the complaint and her

statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. did not reveal the

essential ingredients of the offence of outraging modesty. The

highest allegation in the said statement is of pushing and touching

the body of the complainant but there is no allegation that the

said act of touching was intended to outrage her modesty. The act

was more in the nature of a simple pushing and nothing more. In

this background the revisional Court rightly exercised the

jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. for modifying the order

passed by the trial Court.

Finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order
(3 of 3)
[ CRLR-1369/2015]

dated 30.9.2015, I hereby reject both the revisions as being

devoid of any merit.

Stay petitions also stand rejected.

A copy of this order be placed in both the files.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

S.Phophaliya/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *