Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: – 1 – C.C.NO.267/PW/2018
Received on : 20/01/2018
Registered on : 20/01/2018
Decided on : 24/05/2023
Duration : 05 Y. 04 M. 04 D.
Exh. : 07
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY A. I. SHAIKH)
(JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)
CNR NO.MHMM190011142018
(a) The serial No. of the case; : C.C.No.267/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: In the month of October, 2017
(c) The name of the complainant
(if any);
: The State (Versova Police
Station in C. R. No. 429/2017).
(d) The name of the accused
person and his parentage and
residence;
: Pravin Vasudeo Chaudhary,
Age 39 Years
Occupation Service,
R/o. Plot No.01, Safilana Sadan,
Raheja Complex, Sat Bangala,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of
or proved ;
: Under Section 354, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code.
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination (if any);
: The accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order; : The accused is acquitted.
(h) The date of such order; : 24/05/2023
-- 1 of 6 --
– 2 – C.C.NO.267/PW/2018
Ms. Seema Mokal, APP for the State.
Mr. M. K. Nayak, Advocate for accused.
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered on 24/05/2023. )
1. The accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable
under Sections 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that in the first week of
October, accused came with informant and told her “Madam Aap Mere
Ghar Chaliya, Mera Ghar Najdik Hai, Mere Ghar Drink Karte Hai”. She
told him “Kasle Drink”. Therefore, he told “Madam Sharbat”.
Thereafter, after 10 days of the said incident at about 11.00 hrs.
accused caught hold the hand of informant and told her “Chaliye
Madam Mera Ghar Baju Mein Hai, Baith Kar Bath Karte Hai” and
outraged her modesty. Accused also threatened her. Hence, informant
lodged report against the accused.
3. On the basis of the report given by the informant, crime
No. 429/2017 came to be registered against the accused. I.O. arrested
the accused. During further investigation he recorded statement of
witnesses and after completion of investigation filed chargesheet.
4. The charge is framed against the accused for the above
mentioned offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. The prosecution has examined only two witnesses. Statement of
the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
-- 2 of 6 --
– 3 – C.C.NO.267/PW/2018
recorded. The defence of the accused is of total denial.
5. The points for determination alongwith my findings
thereon as under :
POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that the accused
used criminal force to the informant Smt.
Shikha Satvir Hans i.e. by saying “Chaliye
Madam Mera Ghar Baju Me Hai, Baithkar
Baat Karate Hai” by holding her hand with
intent to outrage her modesty by such
criminal force ?
In the negative
4] Does the prosecution prove that the accused
committed criminal intimidation by
threatening the informant ?
In the negative
5] What order ? The accused is
acquitted.
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO. 1 AND 2:
6. These points are interconnected with each other, therefore,
they are taken up together for consideration and determination.
7. Shikha Satveer Hans, informant (P.W.1) deposes at Exh.4
that she had working with Chandrashekhar Vaishnavi in a stock market.
She was temporary residing at Andheri(W). Chandrashekhar Vaishnavi
is also social worker and helping to the farmer. He has given 3 wheeler
to Yogesh Panmadh, who is also farmer. He has placed the 3 wheeler
near Shafina Sadan, 7th Bungalow. At that time she was also present
there. At that time accused Pravin Choudhary and his friend Sardar
came there. They were talking with Yogesh Panmadh. Thereafter,
-- 3 of 6 --
– 4 – C.C.NO.267/PW/2018
Pravin Choudhary came to her and he told her that he want to talk with
her. He told her that he is resided at Shafina Sadan. He again told her
come to his house for drink. When she asked about the drink he
changed the subject and told her that he offered her Sharbat. When she
steered look at him. Thereafter, he left the place. After some days he
again came at the same place. At that time he holded her hand. He
told her come to his place. She rescued her hand and said how you to
dare to hold her hand. So he got scared and he left the place. He told
her he will see her.
8. Thereafter, on 2nd December, 2017 at about 11.30 a.m. she
along with Yogesh Panmadh present at the same place. Accused called
police and BMC and he shouted do not buy the vegetable from this
farmer. After fed up with all these incident she lodged F.I.R. Exh. 5
against the accused on the same day.
9. During her crossexamination she deposed that police did
not ask her why she lodged the complaint after so much delay. She do
not know the place where they are selling vegetables are restricted area
by BMC. She do not know the accused is Secretary of residence
association of 7th Bungalow. She do not know the accused has received
the complaint from the society members that even though restricted
area they have selling the vegetables at the place. She denied that
accused repeatedly request her not to sale the vegetable at that place
but she ignored him. She further denied that accused has not allowed
her to sell the vegetables hence, she filed false case against him.
10. Pravin Chandrakant Rakshe, Investigating Officer, (P.W.2)
deposes at Exh.5 that on 03.12/2017 he was attached to Versova police
-- 4 of 6 --
– 5 – C.C.NO.267/PW/2018
station. On that day informant had came for lodging the report. He
registered FIR as per her version. During investigation he recorded the
statement of witnesses and filed chargesheet against the accused.
11. During his crossexamination he stated that the incident
had occurred on first week of October, 2017. Informant had not stated
the reason to delay for lodging FIR. He denied that no any incident had
happened. He further denied that the informant had filed false
complaint.
12. I have carefully gone through the record. The prosecution
has examined two witnesses i.e. Shikha Satveer Hans, informant
(P.W.1). She stated in her crossexamination that she did not tell about
the incident when the accused has hold her hand. Pravin Chandrakant
Rakshe, Investigating Officer, (P.W.2). His evidence is formal in nature.
The oral evidence adduced by the prosecution is not corroborative,
reliable and not supporting to the prosecution case. The prosecution
failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. Hence, I
answer Points No. 1 and 2 in the negative.
AS TO POINT NO.3 :
13. The prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused. Therefore,
the accused is liable to be acquitted. In the result, in answer to Point
no.3, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1 The accused Pravin Vasudeo Chaudhary is acquitted of the
offence punishable under Sections 354, 506 of the Indian Penal
Code vide Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
-- 5 of 6 --
– 6 – C.C.NO.267/PW/2018
2 Bail bond of the accused stand cancelled.
3 The accused to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand Only) vide Section 437–A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for appearance before the higher court, if
said court issues notice to him for his appearance.
The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer and
pronounced in open Court.
(A. I. Shaikh)
Date : 24.05.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
Typed On: 24/05/2023
Signed On: 24/05/2023
-- 6 of 6 --