Bangalore District CourtHas Filed Her Written Arguments And Memo ... vs She Has Examined Herself As Pw.1 And Got ... on 4 September, 20211                   CC No.9394/2005\n\n   IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN\n             MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.\n\n            Dated this the 4th day of September 2021\n\n             Present : Sri.Arun Sadashiv Gudigenavar,\n                              B.A., LL.B., (Hon's) L.L.M.,\n                             IX Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.\n\n                       CC NO.9394/2005\n\n1.C.C.No.                       9394/2005\n\n2.Date of offence               24-02-1997\n\n3.Complainant                   Shakuntala.\n\n4.Accused                       1. Sannabasappa\n                                   Technical Manager.\n\n                                3. B.Ningegowda\n                                   Attender.\n\n                                4. K.S. Kanthi Gowdar\n                                   First Division Clerk.\n\n                                2. S. Janu Naik. (Split-up)\n                                   All residents of Bengaluru.\n5. Offences                     U/Sec.341, 354, 506 r/w 34\n  complained of                       ofIPC.\n6.Plea                          Accused No.1, 3 & 4 pleaded not\n                                guilty.\n                              2                 CC No.9394/2005\n\n\n7.Final Order                Accused No.1, 3 & 4 are\n                             acquitted.\n\n8.Date of Order              04-09-2021.\n\n\n                           JUDGMENTThe complainant as "party-in-person" has filed private\n\ncomplaint u/Sec.200of Cr.P.C. against the accused No.1 to 4\n\nfor the offences punishable U/Sec. 420, 380, 354, 506, 357,\n\n426, 348, 386 r/wSec.120(B)of IPC. This Court has referred\n\nthe matter to the jurisdictional police station u/Sec.156(3)of\n\nCr.P.C. for investigation. After investigation the police have\n\nfiled 'B' Report. The complainant has challenged the said B\n\nreport by filing protest memo.     Thereafter, this Court has\n\nrecorded the sworn statement of the complainant and passed\n\nthe order dated 23-05-2005 by setting aside the B report and\n\ntook the cognizance of the offences punishable u/Sec.341,354,506r/wSec.34of IPC and registered criminal case\n\nagainst the accused No.1 to 4 for the above said offences.3                  CC No.9394/20052.   The brief facts of the complainant's case are as under:It is the case of the complainant that she was appointed\n\nas   a    sales   girl   by   Cauvery   Handlooms,   Basavanagudi,\n\nBengaluru as per the appointment order dated 17-07-1982.From 11-04-1996 to 13-3-1997 she was working as a              sales\n\nmanager at branch office of Cauvery Handlooms situated at\n\nRaja Market, Bengaluru. Accused No.3 was working with her\n\nand he also used to collect the daily sale proceeds from her.Further it is the case of the complainant that she used to remit\n\nday-to-day cash collection to the head office and also used to\n\nobtain proper receipt for the same and during her tenure all\n\nthe accounts were upto date.3.   Further it is the case of the complainant that on 24-2-\n\n1997 accused No.1, 2 and 4, without obtaining any permission\n\nfrom Managing Director, came to the branch office at Raja\n\nMarket to inspect the office and to verify the stocks and4                  CC No.9394/2005accounts. At that time, all of sudden the accused closed the\n\nrolling shutter of the showroom and took her to a dark room\n\nand forced her to sign blank papers, ledgers, cash books and\n\nstock books and thereafter all the accused abused her in filthy\n\nlanguage and tried to outrage her modesty. Further it is the\n\ncase of the complainant that accused No.1, 2 and 4\n\nthreatened her to handover the cash of Rs.20,000/- and the\n\naccused No.3 took away 15 silk sarees worth of Rs.41,955/-\n\nand thereafter, manipulated all the accounts. In this regard,\n\nshe immediately lodged complaint to the Managing Director.\n\nBut no action was taken against the accused No.1 to 4 as such\n\nshe herself went to Chickpet police station and lodged\n\ncomplaint against the accused No.3 which came to be\n\nregistered in Crime No.82/1987.4.   Further it is the case of the complainant that after\n\nregistering crime No.82/1987 the police filed 'C' report before\n\nthis Court. She gave a complaint to the Managing Director,5                CC No.9394/2005Commissioner for Textiles and Labour Commissioner.      In spite\n\nof it no action was taken against the accused.     The incident\n\nwas also published in weekly newspaper.       Further it is the\n\ncase of the complainant that all the accused manipulated the\n\naccounts and mislead the Managing Director alleging that she\n\nhad misappropriated the amount to the tune of Rs.41,955/- for\n\nher personal gains. The Managing Director believing the\n\nversion of all the accused ordered the accounts section to\n\ndeduct the same from her salary i.e. at the rate of Rs.460/- per\n\nmonth.   The concerned authority already deducted sum of\n\nRs.32,955/- from her salary. She had given explanation to the\n\nManaging Director regarding the real facts and figures and\n\nabout the entire incident but the Managing Director did not\n\ncare for her explanation. Hence, she constrained to file private\n\ncomplaint before this Court.5.   As already stated supra, after recording the sworn\n\nstatement of the complainant this Court has taken the6                 CC No.9394/2005cognizance of the offences punishable u/Sec.341,354,506r/w\n\n34 ofIPCas per the order dated 23-5-2005 by setting aside the\n\nB report. Thereafter, summons has been issued to the accused\n\nNo.1 to 4. In response to summons the accused No.1, 3 and 4\n\nhave appeared before this Court through their counsel and\n\nobtained bail.   From the date of taking cognizance of the\n\nalleged offences the accused No.2 has not been secured before\n\nthis Court. Hence, as per the order dated 01-09-2010 the case\n\nagainst the accused No.2 has been split-up and split-up\n\ncriminal case No.43949/2010 has been registered against him.\n\nThereafter, evidence before charge has been recorded and after\n\nhearing both sides this Court has framed charges and read\n\nover to accused No.1, 3 and 4. But accused No.1, 3 and 4 have\n\npleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.6.   The complainant in order to prove the guilt of the accused\n\nhas examined herself as PW.1 and her witness as PW.2 and got7                  CC No.9394/2005marked 7 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7.           Thereafter, the\n\nstatement of the accused No.1, 3 and 4 u/Sec.313of Cr.P.C.\n\nhas been recorded. They have denied the incriminating\n\ncircumstances appearing against them and did not choose to\n\nadduce any defence evidence. But they have confronted 9\n\ndocuments to PW.1 and she has admitted those documents as\n\nsuch they have been marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9.7.   I   have   heard   the   arguments   of   both   sides.   The\n\ncomplainant has filed her written arguments and memo with\n\ncitations.   Perused the entire oral evidence and documents\n\nplaced on record.8.   The points that arise for my consideration are as under:(1)Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable\n            doubt that on 24/2/1997 at 10.00 am when she\n            was working as a sales manager at Raja Market\n            showroom, the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of\n            common intention came there and all of sudden\n            closed the rolling shutter of the showroom and took\n            her to a dark room and prevented her from8                   CC No.9394/2005proceeding in any direction in which she has a right\n            to proceed and thereby committed an offence\n            punishable u/Sec. 341 r/w 34 ofIPC?(2)Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable\n             doubt that on the above said date, time and place\n             the accused No.1 to 4 in furtherance of common\n             intention used criminal force on complainant with\n             an intention to outrage her modesty and thereby\n             committed an offences punishable u/Sec. 354 r/w\n             34 ofIPC?(3)Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable\n             doubt that on the above said date, time and place\n             the accused No.1 to 4 in furtherance of common\n             intention gave life threat to CW.1 and thereby\n             committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 506 r/w 34\n             ofIPC?(4)What order ?9.    My findings to the above points are as under:Point No.1 to 3 : In the Negative,\n           Point No.4 : As per final order, for the following :REASONS10.   Point No.1 to 3 :- These three points are taken together\n\nfor common discussion as they are arising out of same incident\n\nand also to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.9                  CC No.9394/200511.    It is the main allegation of the complainant that on\n\n24/02/97 at around 10.00 am when she was working as a\n\nsales manager at branch office of Cauvery Handlooms situated\n\nat Raja Market Bengaluru, accused No.1 to 4 came there and\n\nall of sudden closed the rolling shutter of the showroom and\n\ntook her to a dark room and wrongfully restrained her and also\n\nforced her to sign blank papers, ledgers, cash books and stock\n\nbooks. Further it is the allegation of the complainant that all\n\nthe accused abused her in filthy language and tried to outrage\n\nher modesty and also threatened her of dire consequences if\n\nshe complains against them to any one.12.   In order to attract the ingredients ofSection 339of IPC it\n\nis necessary for the complainant to establish that the accused\n\nNo.1 to 3 caused obstruction to her voluntarily and prevented\n\nher from proceeding in any direction in which she has a right\n\nto proceed.   Similarly, in order to attract the ingredients ofSection 354of IPC the complainant is required to establish10                  CC No.9394/2005that the accused No.1 to 4 used criminal force against her with\n\nan intention to outrage her modesty. In order to attractsSection 506of IPC the complainant is required to establish\n\nthat all the accused criminally intimidated her.     As already\n\nstated supra, the complainant in order to prove the guilt of the\n\naccused she has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 7\n\ndocuments as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. In support of her evidence she\n\nhas examined her witness as PW.2.13.   I have perused the entire chief-examination of PW.1. It is\n\nrelevant to note that PW.1 has commenced her examination-in-\n\nchief on 18-01-2011 and completed on 27-07-2016. In the\n\nchief-examination of PW.1 recorded on 18-1-2011 she has\n\ndeposed that on 11-04-1996 she joined the branch office of\n\nCauvery Handlooms situated at Raja Market, Bengaluru as a\n\nsales manager cum cashier.         Further she has deposed that\n\naccused No.3 was working under her as an attender. She has\n\nalso deposed that on 24-02-1997 at around 10.00 am accused11                 CC No.9394/2005No.1, 2 and 4 came there and all of sudden closed the rolling\n\nshutter of the showroom and without her permission took the\n\ncash from the cash counter and also took cash book and stock\n\nregister. Further she has deposed that all the accused took her\n\nto the dark room and threatened her and also abused her in\n\nfilthy language and took away sarees.       But in the chief-\n\nexamination of PW.1 recorded on 11-7-2016 she has deposed\n\nthat on 24-2-1996 at around 11.30 am when she was alone in\n\nthe showroom all the accused came there and criminally\n\ntrespassed into the showroom and closed the rolling shutter\n\ncompletely. Further she has deposed that accused No.1 sat on\n\nher chair and forcibly took all the cash which was kept in the\n\ncash counter and thereafter, dragged all the sarees from the\n\nshowcase and removed price tag from them and then checked\n\nday book, cash book, stock ledger and bill books. Further she\n\nhas deposed that all the accused forcibly took her to the dark\n\nroom and threatened her by saying that if she would not act in12                   CC No.9394/2005accordance with their direction they would outrage her\n\nmodesty.    Further she has deposed that out of fear she\n\nimmediately started screaming but nobody came to rescue her\n\nas the rolling shutter was completely closed. Further she has\n\ndeposed that thereafter all the accused threatened her of dire\n\nconsequences if she complains to the police         or Managing\n\nDirector of Cauvery Handlooms. Thereafter, she rushed to the\n\nhead office and complained to the Managing Director orally and\n\nin writing as well but no action was taken against the accused.\n\nShe has deposed that on the very same day she went to\n\nChickpet police station and lodged complaint against the\n\naccused and even lodged complaint to the Police Commissioner\n\nand Commissioner of Textiles against the accused.         But no\n\naction was taken against the accused as such she constrained\n\nto file private complaint. She has also deposed that her higher\n\nofficers fixed liability on her for the loss caused by the accused\n\nand deducted sum of Rs.32,955/- from her salary.13                  CC No.9394/200514.   PW.1 in support of her oral evidence she has got marked\n\n7 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7.          Ex.P.1 is the complaint\n\ndated 13-02-1997 made by the complainant to the Managing\n\nDirector, Cauvery Handlooms regarding the conduct of accused\n\nNo.3. Ex.P.2 is the representation dated 15-05-1998 given to\n\nthe Commissioner of Textiles by the complainant seeking to\n\nreimburse   the   salary   in   her     favour.   Ex.P.3   is   the\n\nrepresentation made by the complainant to the Managing\n\nDirector, Cauvery Handlooms.          Ex.P.4 is the representation\n\nmade by the complainant to the Labour Inspector seeking to\n\nreimburse salary with increments and bonus in her favour.\n\nEx.P.5 is the representation dated 04-04-1997 made by the\n\ncomplainant to the Managing Director, Cauvery Handlooms.\n\nEx.P.6 is the first information report in Cr.No.237/2001.\n\nEx.P.7 is the complaint dated 12-12-1997 lodged by the\n\ncomplainant to the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru.14                CC No.9394/200515.     The learned counsel for the accused has subjected PW.1\n\nfor cross-examination.     In her cross-examination she has\n\nadmitted that she took the charge of branch office situated at\n\nRaja Market on 11-04-1996. Further she has admitted that as\n\non the said date all the stocks were in order and she was\n\nlooking after the entire cash transaction. Further she has\n\nadmitted that she used to remit the sale transaction amount to\n\nthe head office or to the bank on the very same day of\n\ntransaction or next day of the transaction. Further she has\n\nadmitted that after taking charge of the showroom she wrote a\n\nletter on 21-8-1996 and again on 17-12-1996 to the Secretary\n\ncomplaining about the non functioning of rolling shutter of the\n\nshop.     These two letters have been marked at Ex.D.1 and\n\nEx.D.2.       She has also admitted that prior to her one\n\nSri.Chandrashekar was working at Raja Market.         She has\n\ndenied the suggestion that based on her two letters seeking to\n\nrepair the rolling shutter, a meeting was held by the committee15                   CC No.9394/2005and it was decided to attend the problem only after visiting the\n\nshowroom. Further she has denied the suggestion that on 09-\n\n01-1997 the committee decided to visit the showroom as such\n\nit had directed accused No.1, 2 and 4 to visit the showroom\n\npersonally and submit the report. But she has admitted that\n\nin this regard on 24-02-1997 accused No.1, 2 and 4 had come\n\nto Raja Market.     She has denied the suggestion that the\n\naccused No.1, 2 and 4 after visiting the showroom they opined\n\nthat the rolling shutter is in good condition and it requires only\n\noiling and greasing.   Further she has denied the suggestion\n\nthat accused No.1, 2 and 4 by looking into the irregularities in\n\nthe showroom they submitted adverse report to the committee\n\nagainst her.    She has admitted that the head office had\n\nmaintained proceedings in respect of repair of rolling shutters.\n\nFurther she has admitted that on the date of the alleged\n\nincident she complained to the Managing Director but she did\n\nnot give complaint to the police station.           Further she16                 CC No.9394/2005specifically admitted that on 24-02-1997 she did not lodge any\n\ncomplaint to the police station with respect to the alleged\n\nincident. She has also admitted that on 05-03-1997 she was\n\ntransferred to Head Office from Raja Market showroom and she\n\nhad given charge to one Sri.B.S.Shettar on 13-03-1997. She\n\nhas also admitted that prior to handing over the charge she\n\nverified all the stocks. The documents relating to her transfer\n\nand handing over charge are marked at Ex.D.4 and Ex.D.5.\n\nShe has further admitted that as per the stock charge as on\n\n13-03-1997 there was deficit of Rs.41,915/- as such a\n\ndepartmental enquiry was conducted against her and she was\n\nfound partly guilty.   She has further admitted that accused\n\nNo.4 was a complainant and witness in the departmental\n\nenquiry conducted against her. The documents pertaining to\n\ndepartmental enquiry is marked at Ex.D.6.     Further she has\n\nadmitted that she did not mention the name of accused No.4 in\n\nthe complaint lodged by her to the Head Office. She has also17                 CC No.9394/2005admitted   that   the   Karnataka   Co-operative   Handlooms\n\nFederation Limited had registered a case against her. Further\n\nshe has admitted that in the said case she had filed affidavit\n\nwhich is marked at Ex.D.7. Further she has deposed that she\n\npreferred an appeal against the order of the committee but her\n\nappeal was dismissed. She admitted the order passed by the\n\nJoint Registrar of the Society and it has been marked at\n\nEx.D.8.16.   PW.1 in her cross-examination dated 18-11-2016 has\n\nadmitted that the drawing officer had deducted her 3 months\n\nsalary, increments, bonus and arrears.      Further she has\n\nadmitted that in this regard she gave a complaint to the\n\nCommittee on 02-01-2000 and it has been marked at Ex.D.9.\n\nShe has also admitted that in the said complaint she did not\n\nmention the name of accused No.4.        She has denied the\n\nsuggestion that she had misused her position after taking18                 CC No.9394/2005complete responsibility of the showroom.     Further she has\n\ndenied the suggestion that she lodged this complaint in the\n\nCourt only for the reason that the accused were responsible for\n\nconducting departmental enquiry against her.     She has also\n\ndenied the suggestion that no alleged incident was taken place\n\non 24-2-1997 as such she did not give any complaint to the\n\npolice. Further she has denied the suggestion that she did not\n\ngive any complaint to the Managing Director on 24-02-1997.\n\nFurther she has denied the suggestion that since there was a\n\ndeficit in the stock charge dated 13-03-1997, she filed false\n\ntheft case against the accused No1 to 4 in the year 2001.\n\nFurther she has denied suggestion that she being a guilty of\n\nmisappropriation of stocks, she filed false case against the\n\naccused.17.   Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 are the letters dated 21-8-1996 and\n\n17-12-1996 which discloses that PW.1 requested the Head19                 CC No.9394/2005Office to repair the rolling shutter of showroom. Ex.D.3 is the\n\nproceedings of the committee.        This document discloses that\n\nPW.1 has sent three quotations to the Committee for getting\n\nrepaired rolling shutter of the showroom. But the committee\n\nhad decided to visit the showroom to check the working\n\ncondition of rolling shutter.    Further this document reveals\n\nthat accused No.4 along with accused No.1 and 2 visited the\n\nshowroom on 24-02-1997 as per the directions of the\n\ncommittee and they submitted report about the irregularities\n\nmaintained by the complainant/PW.1 in the showroom and\n\nalso they opined that the repair of rolling shutter is not\n\nrequired as it only requires oiling and greasing for its smooth\n\nfunction. Further this document reveals that for the purpose\n\nof oiling and greasing of rolling shutter sum of Rs.145/- was\n\nsanctioned in favour of complainant/PW.1.          Ex.D.4 is the\n\ntransfer order dated 05-03-1997 which discloses that the\n\ncomplainant/PW.1 was transferred from Raja Market to Head20                    CC No.9394/2005Office, Bengaluru.     Ex.D.5 is the charge list of showroom\n\nhanded over by the complainant/PW.1 in favour of one\n\nSri.B.S.Shettar on 13-03-1997.              Further this document\n\ndiscloses that the complainant/PW.1 assumed the liability for\n\ndeficit stock to the tune of Rs.41,915/-. Ex.D.6 is the enquiry\n\nreport conducted by Enquiry Officer of Karnataka State Co-\n\nOperative Handlooms Federation, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru,\n\nagainst the complainant/PW.1.         This document also discloses\n\nthat   the    complainant/PW.1             was     found    guilty   of\n\nmisappropriation of the property of federation for personal\n\ngains. It was also found that the complainant/PW.1 guilty of\n\ncausing financial loss by way of stock and remaining\n\nunauthorizedly absent for duty and also found guilty for the\n\nacts subversive of discipline.        Ex.D.7 is the affidavit of the\n\ncomplainant/PW.1        filed         by         her   in      dispute\n\nNo.DHT/JBT/ABN/87/1998-99 before the Additional Director\n\nof Industries and Commerce and Ex-officio Additional Registrar21                  CC No.9394/2005of Industrial Co-operative, Bengaluru.    Ex.D.8 is the order\n\ndated 07-09-2009 passed by the Joint Registrar of Karnataka\n\nState Co-Operative Handlooms Federation, Basavanagudi,\n\nBengaluru,     Ex.D.9 is the representation dated 02-01-2000\n\ngiven by the complainant to the Managing Director seeking to\n\nreimburse the salary increment, bonus and arrears.18.   The complainant/PW.1 in support of her version she has\n\nexamined her witness as PW.2. PW.2 in her chief-examination\n\nhas deposed that she was working as an internal auditor at\n\nCauvery Handlooms for a period of 3 ½ yars i.e. from 22-06-\n\n1998 to 30-11-2001.     Further she has deposed that at that\n\ntime, the complainant/PW.1 was working as a Sales Manager\n\nin the Branch Office of Cauvery Handlooms situated at Raja\n\nMarket and accused No.4 was working under PW.1 as an\n\nattender.    She has also deposed that accused No.1 used to\n\nreceive the stocks and to book the stocks and also to verify the22                 CC No.9394/2005same in the stock room. She has also deposed that accused\n\nNo.3 was also looking after the accounts section and accused\n\nNo.2 was said to be missing during his service. Further she\n\nhas deposed that the complainant/PW.1 had informed about\n\nthe alleged incident took place on 24-02-1997. She has also\n\ndeposed that without conducting       domestic enquiry against\n\ncomplainant/PW.1 sum of Rs.41,900/- was deducted from her\n\nsalary.    The learned counsel for the accused has cross-\n\nexamined PW.2 at length. I have perused the entire cross-\n\nexamination of PW.2 carefully. She has clearly admitted that\n\nin the year 1997 she was not working at Cauvery Handlooms.\n\nThe very admission of PW.2 is sufficient to hold that she does\n\nnot know anything about the alleged incident. It is relevant to\n\nnote that PW.2 heard about the alleged incident from PW.1. It\n\nmeans PW.2 is a hearsay witness.       Hence, this Court is not\n\ninclined to believe the version of PW.2.23                   CC No.9394/200519.   The over all evidence of PW.1 in the light of her cross-\n\nexamination it shows that on 24-02-1997 she was working as a\n\nSales Manager cum Cashier at the Branch Office of Cauvery\n\nHandlooms, Bengaluru. Further it shows that the accused No.3\n\nwas working under PW.1 as an attender and the accused No.1\n\nwas working as a Technical Manager and accused No.4 was\n\nworking as claust auditor.    It also shows that after taking\n\ncharge at the branch office situated at Raja Market, PW.1 wrote\n\na letter to the Head Office as per Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 requesting\n\nto repair the rolling shutter of the showroom. Further it shows\n\nthat based on these two letters the committee decided to visit\n\nthe showroom to inspect the functioning of the rolling shutter\n\nand in this regard the committee directed the accused No.4 to\n\nvisit and to submit report as it could be seen from Ex.D.3.\n\nFurther the evidence of PW.1 in the light of her cross-\n\nexamination shows that accused No.1, 2 and 4 visited the\n\nshowroom    on   24-2-1997.        Ex.D.3   discloses   that   after24                  CC No.9394/2005inspection accused No.1, 2 and 4 opined that the rolling\n\nshutter is in good condition and it requires only oiling and\n\ngreasing.   Further it discloses that after looking into the\n\nirregularities in the showroom they submitted adverse report to\n\nthe committee against PW.1. Ex.D.4 and Ex.D.5 clearly shows\n\nthat PW.1 had endorsed her liability towards deficit of stock to\n\nthe tune of Rs.41,915/- and she has specifically admitted that\n\nshe was found partly guilty in the departmental enquiry\n\nconducted against her as it could be seen from Ex.D.6.\n\nFurther she has clearly admitted that the committee has\n\nalready deducted sum of Rs.32,955/- from her salary.20.     As per the version of PW.1 the alleged incident took\n\nplace on 24-2-1997 at 11.30 am in the branch office of Cauvery\n\nHandlooms situated at Raja Market, Bengaluru.       Further as\n\nper the version of PW.1 all the accused took her to dark room\n\nand forced her to sign blank papers, ledger, cash books and25                 CC No.9394/2005stock books and thereafter, all the accused abused her in filthy\n\nlanguage and tried to outrage her modesty and threatened her\n\nof dire consequences if she complains to any one and the\n\naccused took away sum of Rs.20,000/- and 15 silk saress from\n\nthe   showroom.   But   in   her   cross-examination   she   has\n\nspecifically admitted that she did not give complaint to the\n\npolice on the very same day. Further she has clearly admitted\n\nthat she did not give complaint to the Managing Director in\n\nwriting on the very same day of the alleged incident. Even she\n\nhas not explained what prevented her to lodge the complaint to\n\nthe concerned police station or to the Managing Director of the\n\nCauvery Handlooms on the very same day of the alleged\n\nincident.   She has stated that she gave complaint to the\n\njurisdictional police against the accused No.3 for the offence\n\npunishable u/Sec.380of IPC. But she has not produced any\n\ndocuments to show the same. For the sake of arguments even\n\nif it is assumed that she had lodged complaint against the26                  CC No.9394/2005accused No.3 then the question does arises what made her to\n\nlodge complaint only against the accused No.3 and not against\n\naccused No.1, 2 and 4?.     Even she has specifically admitted\n\nthat she did not mention the name of accused No.4 in her\n\ncomplaint lodged to the Head Office and in the complaint\n\nlodged as per Ex.D.9. But she has not explained why she had\n\nnot included the name of accused No.4 in her complaints.       It\n\nis relevant to note that the alleged incident took place on 24-2-\n\n1997 but the complainant has lodged this private complaint\n\nbefore this Court on 23-7-2001 i.e. after lapse of      nearly 4\n\nyears from the date of the alleged incident.    It clearly shows\n\nthat there is a delay of nearly 4 years in lodging a complaint.\n\nThe said delay has not been explained by PW.1.       No man of\n\nordinary prudence would keep quite for a period of 4 years, if\n\nhe is the victim, without lodging complaint to the police or to\n\nthe Court.   It is relevant to note that the complainant has\n\nneither examined the neighboring shop owners nor produced27                 CC No.9394/2005any independent witnesses before this Court. Therefore, it is\n\ndifficult to accept and believe the version of PW.1 in so far as\n\nthe alleged allegations against the accused No.1, 3 and 4 are\n\nconcerned.21.    The complainant/PW.1 has filed her written arguments\n\nalong with citations reported in :1. 2011 CRI.L.J.395 Andhra Pradesh High Court.2. 2015 CRI.L.J.2268 Chhattisgarh High Court.3. 2008 CRI.L.J.2189 Jharkhand High Court.4. 2015 CRI.L.J.1512 Tripura High Court.5. 2004 CRI.L.J.3570 Allahabad High Court.22.   I have gone through the entire written arguments and the\n\ncitations relied upon by the complainant. But these decisions\n\nare not helpful to the case of the complainant as the facts and\n\ncircumstances of the case are entirely different from that of the\n\npresent case. Therefore, in my opinion, the complainant has\n\nfailed to produce convincing evidence to prove the guilt of28                CC No.9394/2005accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in the absence\n\nof cogent evidence, I am of the opinion that the complainant\n\nhas failed to prove the ingredients of the alleged offences so as\n\nto convict the accused No.1, 3 and 4.            Therefore, the\n\ncomplainant has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled\n\nagainst the accused No.1, 3 and 4 beyond reasonable doubt.\n\nHence, the benefit of doubt should go to accused No.1, 3 and 4.\n\nAccordingly, I answer Point No.1 to 3 in the negative.23.     Point No.4: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass\n\nthe following:ORDER\n          Acting underSection 248(1)of Cr.P.C., accused\n\n      No.1, 3 and 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences\n\n      punishable u/Sec.341,354,506r/wSec.34of IPC.The bail bonds and surety bond of accused No.1, 3\n\n      and 4 stands cancelled.29                     CC No.9394/2005The office is directed to keep the entire file in split-up CC No.43949/2010.(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected directly on\ncomputer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 4 th day of\nSeptember 2021).(Arun Sadashiv Gudigenavar)\n                             IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,\n                                          Bengaluru.ANNEXURE\n\nList of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:PW.1:             Shakuntala.\nPW.2:             A.B.Saroja.\nPW.3:             Srinivasa Murthy.List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:Ex.P.1 : Complaint dated 13-02-1997 made by the\n           complainant to the Managing Director,\n           Cauvery Handlooms.Ex.P.2:      Representation dated 15-05-1998 given to\n             the Commissioner of Textiles.Ex.P.3:      Representation made by the complainant to\n             the Managing Director, Cauvery Handlooms.Ex.P.4:      Representation made by the complainant to\n             the Labour Inspector.30                 CC No.9394/2005Ex.P.5:   Representation dated 04-04-1997 made by the\n          complainant to the Managing Director, Cauvery\n          Handlooms.Ex.P.6:   First Information Report in Cr.No.237/2001.Ex.P.7:   Complaint dated 12-12-1997 lodged by the\n          complainant to the Police Commissioner,\n          Bengaluru.List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:- NIL -List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:- NIL -List of documents and materials marked on behalf of the defence:\nEx.D.1 & 2 : Letters dated 21-08-1996 & 17-12-1996.Ex.D.3      : Proceedings of the Committee.\nEx.D.4      : Transfer order dated 05-03-1997.\nEx.D.5      : Charge list of showroom.\nEx.D.6      : Enquiry report.\nEx.D.7      : Affidavit of PW.1.\nEx.D.8      : Order dated 07-09-2009.\nEx.D.9      : Representation dated 02-01-2000 given by\n              the complainant to the Managing Director.\n\n\n\n                                     IX ADDL.C.M.M.\n                                        Bengaluru.31                  CC No.9394/2005Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (Vide separate order)\n\n\n                     ORDER\n      Acting underSection 248(1)of Cr.P.C., accused32                    CC No.9394/2005No.1, 3 and 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences\npunishable u/Sec.341,354,506r/wSec.34of IPC.\n   The bail bonds and surety bond of accused No.1, 3 and\n4 stands cancelled.The office is directed to keep the entire file in split-up\nCC No.43949/2010.IX ACMM, Bengaluru.