Banwari Lal Sharma, J. - (1.) THESE two revision petitions have been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 26.09.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Appeal No. 36A/1997 whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Criminal regular Case (Complaint) No. 200/89 passed on 30.09.1997 and convicted the present petitioner Vinod Kumar, co -accused Murlidhar S/o. Jagmohan and Mahesh S/o. Mohan Lal for offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced each of them for three months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default thereof to further undergo 15 day's additional simple imprisonment. In appeal, accused Mahesh Kumar was acquitted and the sentence of petitioner Vinod Kumar and Murlidhar was modified by the learned appellate court and the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act was extended and it was ordered that they shall maintain piece for a period of one year and shall pay Rs. 2,500/ - each as compensation to the complainant.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Rani Majumdar filed a complaint (Ex. D -1) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu against the petitioner -accused Vinod, co -accused Murlidhar S/o. Jagmohan and Mahesh S/o. Mohan Lal for offence under Section 354 IPC stating therein that accused persons are related to Shri Mohan Lal Ji Mishra and her husband was his tenant. Shri Mohan Lal Ji wanted to evict the rented shop wherein her husband was running dispensary on one or the other pretext. On 06.11.1983 at about 2:30 PM in the afternoon, when she was going to her husband's dispensary along with his meal then accused alongwith Mahesh Kumar came near her. Murlidhar was driver of motorcycle and other two accused were sitting as pillion rider. Motorcycle was slowed down and Murlidhar pinched her cheek and Vinod put his hand on her breast and pulled her 'Sari' and all the three accused threatened her for dire consequences. When she shouted, at that time, motorcycle was speeded up and accused ran away. She informed her husband about this incident, on which he told her to file a report in the police station. Earlier also, she had tried to report the matter to the police, but the matter was not registered. Therefore, she filed this complaint. The said complaint was dismissed for non -prosecution on 10.12.1983. Thereafter, second complaint was filed by her on 12.12.1983 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu, on which proceedings under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were drawn up and the statements were recorded. The complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed by the court on 06.01.1984, against which the complainant filed a revision petition in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Churu, who accepted the revision vide order dated 08.09.1987 and directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to make further inquiry into the matter and thereafter, the case was sent to Judicial Magistrate, Churu who made further inquiry into the matter and recorded statement of one Shri Hari Narayan under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and on 12.05.1989, the case was again sent to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu who vide order dated 18.07.1989 directed taking of cognizance against the petitioners and Mahesh Kumar for the offence under Section 354 IPC. The said order was challenged in revision before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Churu who, vide his order dated 13.02.1990, quashed the proceedings so far as accused Mahesh Kumar is concerned.
(3.) THE order dated 13.02.1990 was challenged by the complainant in the High Court and this court vide its order 05.12.1990 set aside the order dated 13.02.1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu and restored the proceedings before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu.;