Jyoti Dandass v. State of Uttarakhand Another

Judgment

1. The present criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), by the Applicant, Jyoti Dandass, challenges the legality, correctness, and propriety of the judgment and order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2023. By the said order, the revision preferred by Respondent No. 2, Virendra Mohan, was partly allowed, and the order dated

05.07.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, was set aside to the extent that charges under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, had been framed against him.

2. The controversy arises out of an incident relating to an

FIR lodged by the Applicant on 26.10.2021, registered as FIR 1 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1020 of 2024…………Jyoti Dandass vs State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. No. 01/2021 at the instance of the Applicant and her daughter against Respondent No. 2 and others. The allegations in the FIR include grave accusations under Sections 34, 147, 354, 354-C, 354-D, 448, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The Applicant alleged that the accused persons, including Respondent No. 2, were involved in acts of sexual harassment, intimidation, criminal trespass, and outraging the modesty of the Applicant and her daughter.

4. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the investigating agency exonerated all other individuals except Respondent No. 2 and filed a charge sheet against him under Sections 354-A (1) and 509 IPC. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, upon perusal of the materials on record, took cognizance and framed charges against Respondent no. 2 on 05.07.2023 for the aforementioned offences.

5. Aggrieved by the said order of framing charges, Respondent No. 2 preferred a criminal revision petition before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, being Criminal Revision No. 25/2023. The Applicant herein was not impleaded as a party in the said revision. The revisional court, after hearing the State, allowed the revision in part and held that no offence under Section 354-A IPC was made out against Respondent No. 2 and accordingly discharged him from that charge. However, the charge under Section 509 IPC was retained. 2 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1020 of 2024…………Jyoti Dandass vs State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.

6. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Learned counsel for the Applicant assailed the order of the revisional court by contending that the said court had travelled far beyond its jurisdiction by entering into an adjudication of factual matters and weighing evidence at a stage where only a prima facie view was to be taken. It was urged that the exercise undertaken by the revisional court was akin to a mini-trial, which is impermissible at the pre-trial stage.

8. It was further argued by learned counsel for the Applicant that the impugned order is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The complainant and her daughter, being the victims and directly affected by the revision, were not made parties to the proceedings and were thereby denied an opportunity to be heard. Learned counsel pointed out that the revisional court selectively read the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and ignored the more incriminating parts of the record, particularly the allegations of physical contact and photographing the Applicant and her daughter in the bathroom without their consent.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 defended the impugned order by asserting that the FIR was actuated by mala fide intent and was nothing but a counterblast 3 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1020 of 2024…………Jyoti Dandass vs State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. to ongoing civil disputes regarding land. Counsel submitted that the Applicant had encroached upon the respondent's land and lodged the FIR solely to prevent him from asserting his legal rights.

10. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 further argued that the FIR was a concocted narrative and did not disclose any specific overt act by Respondent No. 2 that could attract the ingredients of Section 354-A IPC. Counsel maintained that the revisional court had rightly applied its mind and prevented a miscarriage of justice by sifting the material and excluding the charge that was not supported by the record.

11. This Court is of the considered view that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into a factual adjudication of evidentiary material, which is not warranted at the stage of framing of charges.

12. The observations of the revisional court statements under Section 164 CrPC do not implicate Respondent No. 2 in any specific overt act attracting Section 354-A IPC are findings that could only be arrived at upon a full-fledged trial. The revisional court’s reliance on such interpretations at the stage of revision, especially in a matter involving allegations of sexual harassment and modesty of women, is misplaced and contrary to law. 4 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1020 of 2024…………Jyoti Dandass vs State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.

13. The allegations in the FIR and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. suggest that the accused made unwelcome physical advances, including putting his arm around the Applicant and pressing her body against his own. The act of taking photographs of the Applicant and her daughter in the bathroom, if proved, constitutes a serious breach of privacy and decency, bringing the act within the scope of Section 354-A(1)(i) IPC.

14. The exclusion of the complainant from the revision proceedings is also a grave lapse in procedure. While the State is the primary prosecutor in criminal cases, the complainant, especially in offences involving sexual harassment, has a fundamental right to be heard where their rights are directly affected by the outcome. The failure to implead the Applicant has resulted in a violation of the principle of audi alteram partem.

15. This Court is also unable to accept the contention of Respondent No. 2 the order framing charges interlocutory and hence not revisable. While the framing of the charge is not purely interlocutory and is subject to revision, the scope of such revision is limited. The revisional court can interfere only where the order suffers from manifest illegality or results in a miscarriage of justice. The impugned order, however, undertook an extensive evaluation of statements and evidence and arrived at a conclusion that should only be determined after trial. 5 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1020 of 2024…………Jyoti Dandass vs State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.

16. It is thus evident that the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, is unsustainable in law and warrants interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The trial court had rightly found sufficient material on record to frame charges under Section 354-A(1) IPC in addition to Section 509 IPC. The revisional court erred in setting aside the said charge without proper legal justification and in disregard of the prima facie case disclosed by the record. ORDER In light of the above analysis, this Court finds that the application under Section 528 BNSS is meritorious and deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2023 is hereby set aside to the extent it discharges Respondent No. 2 from the charge under Section 354-A IPC. The order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, framing charges under Sections 354-A(1) and 509 IPC is restored in its entirety. The present application No. 1020 of 2024 is thus allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Arti ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Ashish Naithani, J.

04.08.2025 6 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1020 of 2024…………Jyoti Dandass vs State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.