ORDER A.K. Sikri, J. - Leave granted. 2. On July 27, 2018, this Court issued notice limited to the question as to whether the charge under Section 354 IPC could have been framed. We have heard the counsel for the parties on this limited aspect and proceed to decide the same. 3. The brief factual matrix which needs to be noticed is that the appellant was a tenant under respondent No.3 and was residing in that capacity on the first floor of the tenanted premises i.e. Y-25, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. He was inducted as tenant on August 01, 1985. In January, 2005, respondent No.3 initiated eviction proceedings against him under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. According to the appellant, with the filing of the said petition, respondent No.3 also disconnected water supply provided to the appellant which forced the appellant to install the shift plastic water tank at his premises in order to receive water from private contractors. He further claims that the Rent Control Tribunal had directed Delhi Jal Board to provide a temporary water connection in the first floor premises of the appellant at the cost of the appellant. Pursuant to the said order, Delhi Jal Board sanctioned a new water connection on January 02, 2007 in the name of the appellant. In order to have that water connection, the appellant commissioned the feeder pipe to reach the water into first floor premises on January 04, 2007. 4. Thereafter, the incident in question took place on January 05, 2007 for which the appellant has his own version and according to him, it is because of the installation of the aforesaid temporary water connection to the tenanted premises, respondent No.3 got angry and she removed the make shift plastic water tank and rolled it into the street. When the appellant tried to reinstall it, altercation took place and one Pradeep Kudesia, brother-in-law of respondent No.3 attacked the appellant. It is not necessary to state the version of the appellant in detail. Fact remains that as a result of the said incident, respondent No.3 lodged a complaint with the Police inter alia stating as under: "I am Archana Saxena D/O Ramesh Saxena R/O Y-25, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. I asked the tenant Mr. Pramod Rastogi to remove the water tank from the compound of ground floor of Y-25, Hauz Khas, since it was obstructing the passage of the residents. I asked the tenant Mr. Pramod Rastogi to remove the water tank from the compound of ground floor of Y-25, Hauz Khas, since it was obstructing the passage of the residents. On this he hit me on the nose with the fist and I fell down and my nose started bleeding. Then he hit me with his foot and I started screaming. This assault was unprovoked and action should be taken against him for assault and injury as per police act." 5. On the said complaint, FIR was registered, matter investigated and charge-sheet filed in the Court of Magistrate on March 31, 2007. Incidentally, the appellant vacated the first floor premises and handed over the vacant possession to the respondent No.3 on February 28, 2010. Arguments were heard on charge and the trial court framed charge against the appellant under Section 325/354/506 IPC on January 08, 2016. The appellant challenged this order of framing charge by filing Criminal Misc. Case No. 4408 of 2017 in the High Court which has been dismissed by the High Court. 6. As stated in the beginning, this Court is concerned with the question as to whether there was any material which disclosed even prima facie case against the appellant was made out under Section 354 IPC. We have already reproduced the version of respondent No.3 in her complaint. In this complaint, she has alleged that the appellant hit her on the nose with the fist and she fell down and her nose started bleeding. Then, he hit her with his foot and she started screaming. This, according to her, was an unprovoked act on the part of the appellant. In this complaint, there is no allegation of any assault or criminal force used against the complainant with intent to outrage her modesty. Section 354 IPC reads as under: "354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.-Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 7. This was the first version of respondent No.3 immediately after the incident. This was the first version of respondent No.3 immediately after the incident. It appears that there was an improvement in the statement of respondent No.3 and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein allegation was made that the appellant had hit respondent No.3 on the breast and gave fist blow on her face. The allegation of hitting on the breast was not made initially. As is clear from the version contained in the complaint which is incorporated in the FIR as well, there is an allegation of hitting her on nose with the fist and thereafter she was hit by the appellant with his foot. We have also seen the MLC report prepared by the Doctor who examined respondent No.3 in AIIMS. Even that suggests X-Ray of PNS and Nasal Bone. 8. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no case under Section 354 IPC is made out. We find that there is no discussion on this aspect either by the trial court or by the High Court. We accordingly allow this appeal partly by setting aside charge framed under Section 354 IPC. 9. No order as to cost.