LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-421

VIJAY KUMAR KADAM Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

Decided On February 05, 2015
Vijay Kumar Kadam Appellant
V/S
The State And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 02.08.2013 by which charge under Sections 323/342/376/511 IPC was ordered to be framed against him. Prayer has also been made for quashing of the FIR 394/11 registered at Police Station Dabri. Respondent No.2/complainant has contested it.

(2.) In a complaint case filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the respondent No.2 alleged that on 26.11.2011 when she had gone to the petitioner's office to inquire whether she could resume her duties, at around 09:30 a.m., the petitioner closed the door from inside and pushed her on the sofa. Thereafter, he started using unparliamentary and obscene words stating that he would not at all spare her He forcibly broke open the "nada" of her salwar after pushing her down on the "sofa" and removed her under-garments. When he was in the process of removing his undergarments, she protested and used legs and fists to get rid of him. At that point of time, the petitioner slapped and inflicted injuries on her breast and private parts. She, however, succeeded in coming out of the room after opening the door and intimated the incident to PCR. Before arrival of PCR, she was beaten by the petitioner and his associate Anita Chaudhary. She was also criminally intimidated. Police of PS Dabri brought her to the police station. She was medically examined at Deen Dayal Upadhyay hospital. She lodged complaint in writing to the police and the matter was assigned for investigation to SI Moolchand. The police, however, did not take any action in the matter.

(3.) On her application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., by an order dated 29.11.2011, FIR was registered on 08.12.2011 at the police station. During investigation, in an inquiry conducted by ACP(PG)/SWD allegations levelled by the victim could not be substantiated. The Investigating Officer submitted cancellation report. However, by an order dated 19.04.2012 the court ordered reinvestigation. Again, after reinvestigation, when closure/cancellation report was filed second time, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 16.05.2013 took cognizance of the offences under Section 354/323/342/376/511 IPC and summoned the petitioner. After committal of the case to Sessions, instant charge order was passed, which is under challenge.