THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.4006 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant against the docket order, dated 12.03.2008 passed by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally in P.R.C.No.103 of 2007 deleting the charge under Section 354 IPC, which was taken cognizance by the then Magistrate, and directing the Office to renumber the said P.R.C. as C.C. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 09.10.2007, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the police against the second respondent stating that on 08.10.2007, while she along with others came to the enumerator for enrollment of her name, the second respondent came to her, abused her for lodging a complaint before the Tahsildar and DRO, caught hold of her hand, pulled her and abused her in filthy language. On the basis of the said report, a case in Crime No.377 of 2007 was registered against the second respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 504, 506 and 509 IPC and the police after due investigation, filed charge sheet. The then Magistrate on the basis of the material, took cognizance of the case not only for the above-said Sections of Law but also Section 354 IPC, which is triable by the Sessions Court. Then, the case was numbered as PRC.No.103 of 2007. Thereafter, the second respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.6204 of 2007 therein seeking to discharge him for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Then, the learned Magistrate through his order, dated 12.03.2008 dismissed the same holding that it is not maintainable in law since the charge under Section 354 IPC is triable by the Sessions Court and the Magistrate has no power to discharge the accused for the said charge but on the same day, the learned Magistrate passed the following docket order: “Accused is present. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.10.2007 between 1.00 to 3.00 p.m. the de facto complainant and L.Ws.2 to 5 were at Government School at Gokul Plots for enumeration of their votes with the voters Enumerator and while so the accused who is the resident of same colony was proceeding infront of the school and on seeing the complainant and voters Enumerator, he started abusing the complainant in most filthy language and assaulted her in public place and threatened her with dire consequences due to previous enmity between them. To attract an offence punishable u/sec.354 IPC, there must be an intention on the part of the accused to outrage the modesty of the victim and mere assault on a woman does not attract the provisions of Sec.354 IPC. Since, it is the case of the prosecution that there were previous disputes between parties and alleged incident took place while the accused was passing in front of the school and seeing the victim, it cannot be said that the accused has intention to outrage her modesty. The allegation in the complaint, the time at which alleged incident took place and the circumstances under which alleged incident took place clearly attracts the provisions of Sec.290, 504, 506, 509 IPC. Hence, the office is directed to convert PRC into CC. The case is taken on file for the offence punishable u/sec.290, 504, 506, 509 IPC by deleting the sec.354 IPC. Call on 08.07.2008.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Magistrate should not have deleted Section 354 IPC against the second respondent and that the impugned order is an erroneous one. After hearing the arguments and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that dismissal of the discharge petition, by the learned Magistrate is in accordance with law since the provision of law i.e. Section 354 IPC was already taken cognizance by the then Magistrate. After dismissal of the same, the learned Magistrate while committing the case to the Court of Session for trial, perused the records and passed the order, which is now under challenge. This Court is of the view that prior to the passing of impugned order deleting Section 354 IPC, the learned Magistrate ought to have given a chance to the petitioner to submit her arguments. However, as the petitioner is aggrieved over the impugned docket order, she can as well file a petition before the learned Magistrate for alteration of Section of Law. On filing such petition, the learned Magistrate shall decide the same after giving notice to the other side. With the above observations, the criminal petition is disposed of. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 21st JUNE, 2010. kvni