DHANPATI Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dtd. 22/5/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), South, Saket Court, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 27/2019 titled 'State vs. Dhanpati @ Dhanwanti' whereby charges were framed against the petitioner under Ss. 341/323/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') in FIR bearing no. 57/2017 and order dtd. 14/12/2018 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South, Saket Court, New Delhi discharging the petitioner was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as disclosed from the record and impugned order, are that present petitioner is complainant in FIR bearing no. 606/2014 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi under Ss. 376/506 IPC, pending trial. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant 'P', a practising advocate who had alleged that on 8/2/2017, she had appeared in Saket Courts with her client Rajender Singh who was accused in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 606/2014 in which the present accused is the complainant. It was alleged that after the hearing in the said case, the petitioner/accused had started abusing and misbehaving with the complainant in the court premises, and when she was going towards her chamber along with her client, the petitioner had stopped her and had beaten and threatened her. It was also alleged that the petitioner, after having restrained her, had misbehaved with her and had bitten her hand badly. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner herein for offences punishable under Ss. 323/341/506 of IPC.

(3.) The learned MM, vide order dtd. 14/12/2018, after perusing the statements of the complainant and witness Rajender Singh, and noting that there was no other public witness, no CCTV footage of the place of incident as well as no medical examination of the complainant to support the case of prosecution, had discharged the accused i.e. petitioner for the alleged offences. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: