SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

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

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
Chowk, Bikaner.

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


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.

Judgment / Order

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

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.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation