Praveen Kumar … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 245 of 2020 Praveen Kumar …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardu Mahto , A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Adv ….. C.A.V. / Dated: 17.06.2022 Pronounced on 16 /01 /2023 The present Criminal Revision No. 245 of 2020 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.01.2020 in Misc. Cr. Appeal No. 71 of 2020 passed by the passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C., Bokaro in S.T. No.01/2020 arising out of Sadar Chas (Mahilaf P.S.Case No. 14/2019, whereby and whereunder a petition under section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge filed by the petitioner from the offence u/s 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code has been rejected . 2. The complaint was lodged by one Soniya Kumari on 18.6.2019 in Sadar Chas-(Mahila P.S. Case No. 14/2019, registered u/s 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been alleged therein by the informant- cum-victim that on 14.11.2018 at 5.00 P.M. while she was alone in her house then Praveen Kumar had come in her house, who was known to her from before. The accused finding the informant alone had forcibly established physical relationship saying that both belong to same caste and he will marry her. Thereafter also on the pretext of marriage , the accused has established physical relationship with her several times and whenever she used to tell about marriage, then the accused used to give evasive reply. When the informant came to learnt that the accused was going to marry one -2 Priyanka Kumari on 25.6.2019 then she lodged the F.I.R. to stop the performance of said marriage. She has further stated that the accused is employed on the post of Pharmacist in Railway Hospital, Muri. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the learned Courts below is illegal and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is submitted that the date of occurrence is 14.11.2018 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 18.6.2019 by the informant. It is submitted that the informant is a major lady and as such the allegation against the petitioner is false and concocted it is evident that she was having consensual sexual relation with the informant on the pretext of marriage. It is further submitted from the charge-sheet submitted in this case by the I.O. , it is clear that the date of birth of the informant is 10.12.1995 which is apparent from the educational certificate and which shows that the informant was aged about 23 years even on the date of the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that the informant-victim was also examined by the Doctor and from the medical report it appears that the informant is aged about 24 years and no sign of rape or external physical injury and any other part of the body was found by the Doctor and as such the medical report also does not support the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, no material has been found to attract Section 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the petitioner at the time of grant of anticipatory bail, as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court, has deposited a Demand Draft of Rs. 2 Lacs as an interim victim compensation in favour of the informant as a condition of bail. -3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment as follows:- (i) 2020 (10) SCC 108 (ii) 2006 (11) SCC 615 (iii) 2019 (18) SCC and (iv) 191 2019 (9) SCC 608 It is submitted that the view of the above the impugned order may be set-aside in the interest of justice and this Criminal Revision may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Special .P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the submission and submitted that the order passed by the learned Court below fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the petitioner has induced the victim girl i.e. O.P. No. 2 and has established physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. It is submitted that the informant, during her statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. has supported the allegation of commission rape upon her .It is submitted that the consent of the informant was obtained by fraud and misconception as such this Criminal Revision is devoid of merit. 6. Learned counsel of the O.P. 2, after adopting the submission of learned counsel for the State, has further submitted that this Criminal Revision is devoid of merit. It is submitted that under section 90 of the I.P.C if the consent is obtained under misconception of the Victim girl then it amounts to rape if any physical relationship is established or it is obtained by fraud. It is submitted that the petitioner has played with the life of victim girl and is going to marriage with another girl and as such the informant was compelled to file the present case . It is submitted that the victim girl and his family member have -4 supported the allegation and the trial has commenced yet and as such this Criminal Revision may be dismissed. 7. Perused the F.I.R., scanned copies of the Lower Court Records of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 8. It transpires from the record that the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Application on 19.02.2020 challenging the order dated 28.01.2020 by which the prayer for discharge was rejected . 9. It is further transpires that on 15.09.2021 the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has called for the Lower Court Record of this case . 10. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed one I.A. No. 2586 of 2021 on 10.06.2021 /15.06.2021 for amending the prayer as the charges has already been framed under section 376 (2) (a) and 417 of the I.P.C. 11. From the perusal of Lower Court Record, it transpires that the charges were framed on 25.03.2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Bokaro. 12. It further transpires that the prosecution has started examination of the witnesses and two witnesses have been examined. P.W. 1 Phulmati Devi was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 04.09.2021 whereas the P.W. 2 Anita Devi was examined, cross- examined and discharged on 23.09.2021 . 13. Therefore the evidence in the case has moved far away and the trial has further proceeded against the petitioner after the framing of charges against the petitioner on 25.03.2021 itself. 14. However the petitioner has filed the petition for amendment in the prayer of 15.06.2021 but however the matter was placed on the 15.09.2021 before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court , the Co-ordinate bench had called for the scanned copy of Lower Court Record and the case has been posted before this Court by the Office on 17.06.2022. 15. Considering the facts that the charges have already framed -5- against this petitioner on 25.03.2021 itself and two witnesses have already been examined on 23.09.2021, this Criminal Revision has become infructuous. 16. Thus, this Criminal Revision devoid has become infructuous and accordingly this Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed . The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.
Decision
Pending I.A. , if any stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Bibha/