HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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.
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Dr.Vijay Shanker s/o Premratan, b/c Purohit, r/io Mohta
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 497 / 2016
MkW- fot; ‘kadj iq Jh izsejru iqjksfgr] tkfr iqjksfgr] fuoklh eksgrk pkSd]
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
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
(2 of 3)
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
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)
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.