Birendra Kumar Singh, aged about 62 years, son of late Shiv Pujan Singh, resident v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arti Kumari, d/o late Niraj Kumar Singh, r/o
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.3457 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3457 of 2021 Birendra Kumar Singh, aged about 62 years, son of late Shiv Pujan Singh, resident of Murli Nagar, Near P.M.C.H., P.O. & P.S.- Seraidhela, Dist. Dhanbad .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arti Kumari, d/o late Niraj Kumar Singh, r/o of Memko More, Near Residence of Sangita Singh, P.O & P.S.- Barwada, Dist. Dhanbad …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
the record to constitute a prima facie case. Hence, it is submitted that there is no illegality committed by the learned Special Judge in taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 354, 506 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 8 of POCSO Act in view of the overwhelming material regarding the offences committed by the petitioner. It is then submitted that the plea of false implication raised by the petitioner in this case is at best a defence of him which he can take at the time of trial, but the same cannot be considered at this stage to quash the cognizance, more so because, the defence plea is a very weak one and is only a figment of imagination of the petitioner created only for the purpose of going scot-free from the consequence of the heinous offence of sexual assault on minor girl committed by him. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 that the Hon’ble Court could not embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence is reliable or not as to that would be the function of the trial court. 5 Cr.M.P. No.3457 of 2021 8. It is also a settled principle of law that inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and another v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 9. After going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear that there is ample evidence in the record including the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the 12 year old minor victim girl which is sufficient to establish commission of the offence punishable under Sections 354, 506 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 8 of POCSO Act by the petitioner. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is no material in the record to come to a conclusion that this case has been instituted for the purpose of wreaking vengeance nor the allegation shows that the case is highly improbable. 11. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the order dated 20.11.2021 in Barwadda P.S. Case No.39 of 2021 in which cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 506 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 8 of POCSO Act has been taken against the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. 13. Consequently interim order if any passed in this criminal miscellaneous petition is vacated. 6 Cr.M.P. No.3457 of 2021 14. The learned trial court be supplied with the copy of this order forthwith. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 5th April, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Binit Chandra, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 20.11.2021 in Barwadda P.S. Case No.39 of 2021 wherein, cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 506 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 8 of POCSO Act has been taken against the petitioner and subsequently, the case has been numbered as Special POCSO Case No.41 of 2021 presently pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad. 2 Cr.M.P. No.3457 of 2021 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner outraged the modesty of the minor daughter of the informant; sexually assaulted her and criminally intimidated the minor girl. 4. On the basis of the written report of the informant who is the mother of the minor victim girl, Barwadda P.S. Case No.39 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No.41 of 2021 was registered and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet no.153 of 2021 after finding that the petitioner has committed offences punishable under Section 354, 506 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 8 of POCSO Act. Consequent upon the submission of the charge sheet vide order dated 20.11.2021, the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Dhanbad vide order dated 20.11.2021 took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 354, 506 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 8 of POCSO Act. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a reputed person and retired from the post of General Manager, CCL and he is innocent. It is next submitted by Mr. Tewari that the informant lodged this F.I.R. in retaliation of Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No.49 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.547 of 2020 lodged by one Shobha Kumari for the offence punishable under Section 354A, 354C, 384, 506 and 376 of Indian Penal Code in which one O.P. Singh @ Om Prakash Singh is the accused (since deceased on 12.04.2021) who set up the informant to lodge this case and in that case the petitioner is a witness and the place of occurrence is the house of 3 Cr.M.P. No.3457 of 2021 the accused of that case. It is then submitted that the informant is the wife of the brother-in-law of the O.P. Singh. It is next submitted by Mr. Tewari that in the said Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No.49 of 2020, charge sheet has been submitted by police against O.P. Singh. It is next submitted that the police has not complied the order dated 04.09.2021 passed by the Special Judge in POCSO Case No.41 of 2021 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad who is also the Special Judge of POCSO Cases who passed the order dated 04.09.2021 has vide order dated 20.11.2021 taken cognizance for the said offences. It is then submitted by Mr. Tewari that the learned Special Judge was swayed by the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the minor victim girl. It is further submitted by Mr. Tewari that the prosecution case is highly improbable and has been instituted for wreaking vengeance against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the order taking cognizance , as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed. 6. Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the order dated 20.11.2021 in Barwadda P.S. Case No.39 of 2021. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 by drawing attention of this Court to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim girl by the learned Magistrate that therein the minor girl of 12 years has vividly stated about the sexual assault upon the minor victim girl and also about outraging her modesty as well as criminally 4 Cr.M.P. No.3457 of 2021 intimidating her by the petitioner and there is ample evidence in