$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 50/2026 and CRL.M.A. 2230/2026, CRL.M.A. 2231/2026 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP. versus ASHOK PRATAP TANWAR .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 16.07.2026 1. The present revision petition assails the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, whereby, the respondent/accused was discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ["SC/ST Act"] whereas, he has been charged under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] since the offence under Section 354 of the IPC was triable by the Court of Magistrate, therefore, the matter was sent back to the said Court by the Session Judge. 2. The facts of the case would indicate that a complaint dated 01.02.2021 lodged by the complainant, a member of the Scheduled Caste This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:20:42 community, alleging that the respondent, who was serving as the Administrative Manager of Cheshire Home, prevented her son from entering the premises during the COVID-19 restrictions, abused the complainant and her son by using caste-based derogatory expressions, pushed the complainant and, thereby, outraged her modesty. 3. Pusuant thereto, an FIR No.284/2021 was registered under Section 354 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the matter was placed for consideration on the question of charge. 4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Trial Court travelled beyond the permissible scope of enquiry at the stage of framing of charge and undertook an impermissible appreciation of evidence. According to her, the statements of the complainant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., coupled with the statements of supporting witnesses, clearly disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. It is urged that at the stage of charge, the Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists and not to weigh the evidence as if conducting a trial. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the record. 6. The Addl. Session Judge in paragraph no. 5 of its order has noted that the eye-witness deposed that at the time of incident, he had not heard the accused passing any casteist remarks against the complainant. Further, Ms. Annamma also deposed that she had not heard the accused passing any casteist remarks upon the complainant. The statement of Security Guard Gopal Mishra was also recorded who deposed that no casteist remarks were This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:20:42 passed against the complainant and that accused had not misbehaved with the complainant in any manner. The paragraph no. 5 of the said finding in the impugned judgement, is extracted as under: “Subsequently, statement of eye witnesses were recorded wherein witness John Bara deposed that at the time of incident, he had not heard the accused passing any castiest remarks against the complainant. Further, witness Ms. Annamma also deposed that she had not heard the accused passing any castiest remarks upon the complainant. Further, statement of Gopal Mishra (security guard) was also recorded who deposed that no castiest remarks were passed against the complainant and that accused had not misbehaved with the complainant in any manner.” 7. It is well settled that at the time of framing of the charges, the Court must assess whether there is reasonable basis to presume that the accused is involved in the offence. The Courts are obligated to examine the broad possibilities of the case. They must take into account preliminary evidence and ensure that the charges are justified based on the allegations made. Bearing in mind, it is seen that the Trial Court in paragraph nos. 21 to 23 has considered the following important aspects: “21. During investigation, IO recorded the statement of witnesses namely Arvind Kumar who had stated in his statement that his father namely Sh. Jagmohan was the employee of Cheshire Home India Delhi Unit and he was residing with his family at staff quarters. On 01.02.2021 at around 11.12 noon, he had reached the gate of Cheshire Home as he wanted to collect some documents from his house and at that time he found that complainant ------ along with --------and Narayan standing on the gate and accused was abusing the complainant and passed easiest remarks. 22. Witness Naryan S/o Ram Prasad had stated his father Ram Prasad was working in Cheshire Home and on 01.02.2021, he had come to visit his father at Cheshire Home India- Delhi Unit and due to corona pandemic, the visitors were not allowed to enter the premises. Thereafter, his father had come to meet him on the gate of Cheshire Home. At that time, complainant along with her son were present at the gate and accused was not allowing the visitors to enter the premises and the accused had passed easiest remarks upon the complainant and ---- had made 100 number call by using his phone. 23. The complainant in her initial complaint dated 01.02.2021 has vaguely This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:20:42 mentioned that on the date of incident, she had initially gone to seek permission from the accused for entry of her son in the home but the same was refused by accused. but later, the accused misbehaved with the complainant and pushed her and used language "tum bhangiyon ki yahan koi jagah nahi hain". However, during the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded u/sec 161 Cr.PC the complainant has herself admitted that she had retired from Cheshire Home Delhi Unit on 01.10.2020.she had alleged that she was not given her final settlement amount/ money by the Home and for the same she had filed a case against Cheshire Home in the Labour Court. Further, that she was residing in the staff quarter and on the date of incident, the accused had touched her on her chest and also on her neck and same is not mentioned by her in her original complaint. Further, she had stated that she was pushed by the accused and she fell down. However, the complainant refused to get her medical conducted. Further, in the statement recorded u/ sec 164 CrPC, the complainant had stated that on the date of incident, the accused had refused to issue a pass to the complainant in his office and misbehaved with the complainant. Further, when the complainant left the office of the accused and went to the main road to meet her son, he had put lock on the door/ gate of the Home and thereafter abused her 1n filthy language and even pushed her from her chest. The aforesaid statements of the complainant are not corroborated by the other witnesses and there are inherent contradictions in the statement of complainant herself. Further, the judgment relied upon by Ld Counsel for accused also cannot be lost sight wherein it has been held: "12. It is also well settled that FIR can be quashed, if the allegations taken in entirety at their face value, prima facie do not constitute any offence, if the allegations are absurd or inherently improbable, if there is any legal bar to the institution of such proceedings and if the criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, etc. In his regard reference may be made to the Principals laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supple ( 1) SCC 335, and several other judgments.” 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdischandra Patel v. State of Gujrat & Anr.1 in para 23 has observed as under: “ 23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The court must indeed sift the material 1 2019 SCC OnLine 588 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:20:42 before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that the accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence.” [Emphasis Supplied] 9. The Trial Court did not embark upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. Rather, it sifted the material collected during investigation for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were prima facie disclosed. While doing so, it took into consideration the statements of all the material witnesses, including those witnesses who did not support the allegation regarding the use of caste-based remarks, the inconsistencies appearing in the successive statements of the complainant, as well as the surrounding circumstances emerging from the record. The Trial Court also noticed that the respondent had joined Cheshire Home only about one month prior to the alleged incident and that the material on record did not prima facie indicate that the alleged acts were committed with the requisite intention to intentionally insult or humiliate the complainant on account of her caste. On the basis of such material, the Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that there was no This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:20:42 sufficient ground to presume the commission of the offences under the SC/ST Act. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said conclusion is based on the material available on record and cannot be said to suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, finding no merit, the revision petition fails and the same stands dismissed. The pending applications also stand dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 16, 2026 Aks/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:20:42