* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 13th September, 2018
Judgment delivered on: 24th September, 2018

+ CRL.M.C. 692/2014

HARI KISHEN SHARMA ….. Petitioner

versus

STATE ANR. ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Advocate. with Mr. Shyam
Dev Lal Ms. Drishti Rathore, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr.Kamal Kr.Ghai, Addl. PP for the State with SI Sapan
Dr. (Maj) J.C. Vashista and Ms. Yashika Sood,
Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICESANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.41/2013 under Sections
506/509 of the IPC, Police Station Paschim Vihar and also impugns
charges framed against the petitioner on 18.11.2013 under Section
506(1) and 509 IPC.

2. Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent
No.2 that she is a teacher and the principal of the College who is also
the brother of her father-in-law usually talked dirty with her on
account of which she used to feel ashamed and usually he threatened

Crl MC 692/2014 Page 1 of 9
her that in case she disclosed to anybody about his conduct, she would
have to face the consequences of the same.

3. On the subject complaint, FIR was registered and consequently
charge sheet filed and on perusal of the same, Trial Court has framed
charges, against the petitioner, under Section 506(1) and 509 of the
IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the charge
framed is vague and not in accordance with the mandate of Section
212 of the Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the allegations are
vague and the complaint is motivated as there was a history of dispute
between the petitioner and his brother, the father-in-law of the
complainant. Further, it is contended that the allegations do not raise
any suspicion against the petitioner of having committed any offence
under Section 506 or 509 of the IPC. Reliance is placed on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami Another
vs State Of Uttaranchal Others, 2007 (12) SCC 1 and Mr. Robert
John D’Souza Ors. Vs. Mr. Stephen V. Gomes Anr. 2015(9) SCC

96.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the
complaint made by the prosecutrix shows commission of the offence
under Sections 506 and 509 and even if the charge framed is vague,
evidence during trial would prove the allegations and the consequent
guilt of the petitioner.

Crl MC 692/2014 Page 2 of 9

6. It would be expedient to refer to the FIR lodged on the
complaint of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix in her complaint has alleged
as under:-

“The Principal of my college Dr. Hari Kishan Sharma
s/o Shyam Sunder Sharma r/o D-16/128, Sec – 3 Rohini,
who is my brother of father-in-law (Chachiya Sasur) in
relation too, used to talk dirty with me for which I felt
ashamed of being a woman. He also used to threaten me
stating that if I ever told anything about his wrongdoings
to anybody, then I will have to face dire consequences. A
suitable legal action be taken against him.”

7. It is an admitted position that apart from what is stated in the
FIR there is no evidence or supplementary statement given by the
prosecutrix detailing as to when, where and what was stated by the
petitioner. The only allegation is that he used to talk dirty for which
she used to feel ashamed. What were the words used, gestures etc.
have not been stated by the prosecutrix. Nor is the time, date and
place stated by her.

8. The charge framed by the Trial Court on 18.11.2014 is as
under:-

CHARGE

“That at an unknown date, place and time prior to
13.02.2013 within the jurisdiction of PS Paschim Vihar,
you criminally intimidated the complainant Ms. Asha
Rani to face the consequences in case any information is
passed over to someone else and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/s 506(1) IPC and within my
cognizance.

Crl MC 692/2014 Page 3 of 9

Secondly, that at an unknown date, place and time prior
to 13.02.2013 within the Jurisdiction of PS Paschim
Vihar, you intended to insult the modesty of the
complainant, abused her in a filthy language and also
made indecent gestures intending that said gestures shall
be seen by her and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/s 509 IPC and within my cognizance.”

9. The charges framed state that “at an unknown date, place and
time prior to 13.02.2013……” Charge framed is clearly not in
consonance with Section 212 Cr.P.C which mandates that the charge
shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged
offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in
respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to
give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.

10. The allegations levelled and the charge framed is clearly vague
and do not sufficiently describe the commission of the offence and
also do not give notice to the petitioner of the offence with which he is
charged.

11. Section 506 prescribes punishment for criminal intimidation.
Criminal intimidation has been defined in Section 503 IPC which
reads as under:-

“503. Criminal intimidation.–Whoever threatens
another with any injury to his person, reputation or
property, or to the person or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested, with intent to cause
alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any

Crl MC 692/2014 Page 4 of 9
act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do
any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the
means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits
criminal intimidation.

Explanation. –A threat to injure the reputation of any
deceased person in whom the person threatened is
interested, is within this section. Illustration A, for the
purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil
suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal
intimidation.”

12. To constitute an offence under Section 503 IPC, the
requirement is that one has to threaten another with injury to his
person, reputation or property with the intent to cause alarm to that
person or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally
bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

13. The prosecutrix in her complaint in the FIR has not averred that
there was any threat of injury to person, reputation or property.

14. Section 509 IPC reads as under:-

“509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty
of a woman.–Whoever, intending to insult the modesty
of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or
gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word
or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object
shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the
privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year,
or with fine, or with both.”

Crl MC 692/2014 Page 5 of 9

15. The allegations made by the prosecutrix of the offence under
Section 506, 509 are as vague as they can be. Prosecutrix has not
stated as to what were the words uttered or gestures, actions or threat
extended which would satisfy the requirement of Section 506 and 509
IPC.

16. Per contra, petitioner has contended that there was a history of
dispute between the families and even prior to the lodging of the FIR,
petitioner had made complaints to the Police Commissioner of threats
from the family of the complainant. Further, it is contended that the
complainant who was a teacher was asked to furnish documents that
she had submitted at the time of her employment and the teaching
experience certificate furnished by the respondent was found to be
false. Faced with the consequence of an action being taken it is
alleged that the subject complaint was filed which was motivated.

17. The Supreme Court in Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of
Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 has held as under:

“12. Now the next question is whether a prima facie
case has been made out against the appellant. In
exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the
Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under the said section has the undoubted power
to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out; where the materials placed
before the court disclose grave suspicion against the
accused which has not been properly explained the court

Crl MC 692/2014 Page 6 of 9
will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding
with the trial; by and large if two views are equally
possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion
but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be
fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising
jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office
or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider
the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the court
but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and
cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial (see Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal [(1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] ).”

18. For accused to face trial for an offence there has to be grave
suspicion and not mere suspicion or an allegation. In the present case
apart from bald allegations, evidence does not reveal grave suspicion
of the petitioner having committed the offence under Section 506 or
509 IPC.

19. Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) has laid down
that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment or persecution and Courts cannot be utilized for
any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of
an ultimate conviction is bleak, no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue. Where the
allegations in the first information report or complaint even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima

Crl MC 692/2014 Page 7 of 9
facie constitute the offence alleged or make out a case against the
accused or where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended
with mala fide or where the proceedings are maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the
proceedings are liable to be quashed.

20. The judgment in the case of Manohar M.Gilani Versus Ashok
N. Advani: AIR 2000 SC 202, relied on by learned counsel for the
respondent is not applicable in the facts of the present case. In
Manohar M.Gilani, High Court had quashed the complaints at the
stage when investigation was still being carried on. Further, the
investigation was being conducted consequent to directions issued by
the High Court itself in an application filed in public interest. The
Supreme Court found that in the order impugned therein, investigation
into several serious allegations was being throttled.

21. In the present case, investigation is complete and charge sheet
has been filed. Clearly, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts
of the present case.

22. The allegations made by the respondent are vague and the
evidence does not even raise suspicion, leave alone grave suspicion
against the petitioner for having committed any offence under Section
506/509 IPC.

Crl MC 692/2014 Page 8 of 9

23. In view of the above, FIR No.41/2013 under Sections 506/509
of the IPC, Police Station Paschim Vihar and the consequent
proceedings emanating there from are quashed. There shall be no
order as to costs.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
September 24, 2018
rk

Crl MC 692/2014 Page 9 of 9