SUNDER KUKREJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.')seeking following reliefs:

(2.) The present FIR bearing no. 1310/2015 under Ss. 354/354D/506 IPC was registered on 19/12/2016 at Police Station Amar Colony, New Delhi on the basis of complaint filed by complainant 'R' wherein it was stated that on 19/12/2015, the petitioner, along with his wife and other family members,was present at M-Cinemas, East of Kailash, New Delhi (hereinafter 'the premises'), and when the complainant was trying to enter the premises, her way was blocked by several bouncers/guards who were unauthorizedly deployed by the petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner and his men were video-graphing every nook and corner of the premises and also hacking computer systems for which the petitioner had brought an engineer alongwith him. Taking note of the conduct of petitioner, the ccomplainant started following and watching his actions. It is alleged that when the complainant and petitioner were in kitchen, the petitioner pinched the buttock of complainant and pushed her, at which complainant screamed and went outside, and while she was leaving, the petitioner laughed and followed her.Thereafter, petitioner's wife also came and screamed and hurled abuses at the complainant. It is further alleged that petitioner also intimidated and threatened the complainant by saying that he was well-connected with influential people. Besides the details qua the incident dtd. 19/12/2015, it is further mentioned in the complaint that petitioner and his men had been video-graphing all the movements of complainant including her going to the washroom, and that the petitioner and his men were making the complainant feel uncomfortable through their dirty gazes for more than 7-8 days before the date of present incident.

(3.) Pursuant to investigation, charge-sheet in the present case was filed on 7/5/2016 under Ss. 354/354D/506 of IPC, and charges were framed against the petitioner by the learned MM vide order dtd. 28/5/2019. The concluding portion of the said order, which is impugned before this Court, reads as under: