* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 14.03.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 822/2016 Crl. M.A. 19927/2016
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ….. Petitioner
SHAUKENDER ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Adv.
For the Respondent : None.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner – State impugns order on charge dated 13.07.2016
whereby respondent has been discharged of the offences under
Section 354 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) read with Sections 7
8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(POCSO for short).
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the prosecutrix along with
her sister had gone to V3S Mall where there was a game zone by the
name of Haunted House. In the Haunted House, it was pitch dark and
nothing was visible. It is alleged that one person held the foot of the
CRL.REV.P 822/2016 Page 1 of 3
sister of the prosecutrix and in the process pocket of the jacket of her
sister was also torn. When the door was opened, the respondent was
alleged to be the person who was inside the haunted house and
blocking their way.
3. The trial court has discharged the respondent of the said offence
noticing that the respondent was an employee of Haunted House and
was employed for the purposes of scaring people who visited Haunted
4. Haunted House is a gaming zone which is kept dark and people
visit the same to get the thrill of getting scared. Respondent was an
employee of Haunted House and is alleged to have been employed for
giving the thrill of scaring people.
5. The case of the prosecution was that he held the foot of the
sister of the prosecutrix and also in the process pocket of her jacket
got torn. Respondent is sought to be charged under Section 354 IPC
and Section 7 8 POCSO.
6. Section 354 IPC comes into play when a person assaults or uses
criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be
likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. Sections 7 8 of the
POCSO Act require sexual intent and touching of particular parts of
7. The statements of the witnesses do not suggest that respondent
CRL.REV.P 822/2016 Page 2 of 3
has either outraged or attempted to outrage the modesty of the
prosecutrix or her sister or with any sexual intent or otherwise touched
any parts of the body referred to in section 7 POCSO.
8. On perusal of the record as well as the impugned order, I am of
the view that ingredients of the Section 354 IPC and Sections 7 8 of
the POCSO are not made out from the allegations levelled by the
9. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the
impugned order dated 13.07.2016 and the view formed by the trial
court that no charge is liable to be framed against the accused.
10. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of Court master.
MARCH 14, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
CRL.REV.P 822/2016 Page 3 of 3