THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1708 of 2010 (Dated : 15-12-2010) Between: Tirupathi Srinivas S/o Ananthaiah and others …Petitioners A n d State of A.P. and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1708 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 13.9.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.938 of 2010 in C.C.No.818 of 2002 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 216 Cr.P.C and framed charges under Sections 354, 420, 452 and 506 IPC. 2. The petitioners herein are A-1 to A-3 in C.C.No.818 of 2002. Trial against them came to be proceeded with for the offences under Sections 448 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Thereafter, the prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.938 of 2010 under Section 216 Cr.P.C., to frame charges under Sections 354, 420 and 506 IPC. The said application has been resisted by the accused. The learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 13.9.2010, allowed the application fied by the prosecution. The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 27.9.2010. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is taken in toto, no ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC have been stated by them and therefore, adding charge under Section 354 IPC is wholly unwarranted. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent supported the order impugned in the revision. 7. A charge under Section 354 IPC is one which is very easy to make and very difficult to rebut. A careful approach has to be adopted by the Court while dealing with the cases alleging outrage of modesty. The essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC are as follows:- 1) that the person assaulted must be a woman; 2) that the accused must have used criminal force on her; and 3) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty. 8. I have gone through the evidence of Pws.1 to 8. Pw-1 is the victim. She stated in the chief-examination as hereunder:- “ I am R/o Chnthal and I am a house wife. On 10.8.02 one person by name Srinivas came to my house and rise the dispute. I myself and the said person Srinivas use to work in Usha company and the Srinivas use to lend the money to the person at the rate of 5% interest and when I asked him to give some money he said to me that, If I put the land papers with him then he will lend the money at the rate of 3% interest. Then I took some amount of 30 thousand. Then I repaid him an amount Rs.15,000/- and asked him to return my land papers. Then he sent legal notice and after one week came to my house and started the disputes. He brought along with him 15 persons in a DCM van and beat me and my two sons and then I went to the PS and lodged the complaint which is Ex.P-1 along with three photographs showing the scene. Police examined me in this case”. 9. I have read and re-read the evidence of Pw-1. She does not speak anywhere of the accused attempting to outrage her modesty. Therefore, framing of charge under Section 354 IPC is wholly unwarranted. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed setting aside the order dated 13.9.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.938 of 2010 in C.C.No.818 of 2002 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District to the extent of framing charge under Section 354 IPC. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.15-12-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1708 of 2010 (Dated : 15-12-2010)