BEENA Vs. MAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order dtd. 19/11/2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, vide which the revision filed by the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) was allowed and the complaint filed by the petitioner (complainant before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of the offences punishable under Ss. 354 and 500 of IPC. It was asserted that the informant is running a shop at Chamain. The police searched the shop of the complainant on 19/3/2008 and 25/12/2008, without any reason. No recovery was effected from the shop. The complainant was present in her shop on 9/1/2009 at about 6:00 p.m. Jagrati (CW-2)and other customers were also present in the shop. The complainant was ready to go to Shimla to buy articles for her shop when the accused entered the shop and searched it. They could not find anything. Accused No. 3 and 4, came out of the shop and brought some boxes inside the shop. The complainant objected and said that she would not keep any articles in her shop. However, she was told that these articles would be kept for a limited time. Kanwar Singh Dogra (CW-3) and Bablu Rajta(not examined), also reached on the spot in the meantime. The accused argued with them. Rajesh and Suresh, the brothers of the complainant, also reached Chamain to take her to Shimla. The complainant boarded the vehicle to go to Shimla. Accused No. 2 and 3 dragged the complainant out of the vehicle and did obscene acts with her. They tried to drag her in their vehicle. They told the complainant to put her signatures on the papers or else she would be dragged to the police station. ? 60,000/- kept in an envelope and Mangalsutra being worn by the complainant got lost during the incident. The brothers of the complainant objected to the dragging of the complainant; however, they were taken to some distance in the vehicle. Accused No. 2 and 5 and some police officials went to the house of the complainant, but they did not find anything. The accused entered the shop of the complainant without any search warrant. They had done obscene acts with the complainant. Hence, a complaint was filed to take action against the accused.

(3.) The learned Trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant- (CW-1), Jagriti (CW-2), Kanwar Singh Dogra (CW-3) and Suresh Dogra (CW-4) and found sufficient reasons for summoning the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 354, 500 and 379 of IPC against accused No. 2, Sec. 354 and 500 of IPC against accused No. 3 to 5 and Sec. 500 of IPC against accused No.1.