Manohar Paswan vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 11.12.2020 and the order of charge framed dated 16.03.2022 arising out of Gonda P.S.Case No.63 of 2020, G.R.No.3665 of 2020 [Sessions Trial No.21 of 2022], pending in the court of A.J.C.1st cum Special Judge, FTC (CAW), Ranchi.

The case was instituted against the petitioner on the basis of written information submitted by the informant Asha alleging therein that I, Asha doing work of nursing and it is further alleging therein that on 23.03.2020 a call had come from Mobile No.9631176947, 8651138675 and 787065348 on my Mobile 7050224410 and 9905802434. He talked to me and disclosed his name as Manohar Paswan son of Bhim Ram, resident of Village Rupaitha, Block Nokha District Rohtas, Sasaram, Bihar. Manohar Paswan further told that I am unmarried and doing job in Aurangaad Collectoriate in Bihar. Informant told that he further told that I am willing to merry with you. Then informant told that I am already married and having children. Then he told that he has no objection and am in knowledge that you have been neglected by your husband. It is further stated by the informant that she stopped to talk on by cutting call. But he used to contact me by way of facebook, whatsapp and messages and always used to disturb. I want to overlook, but suddenly he came to my residence on 26.05.2020 and established physical relationship with me on promise to marriage. But he did not marry with me. It is further stated by the informant that she become mentally ill and lodging a FIR against Manohar Paswan son of Bhim Ram with a request to take necessary legal action against him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed on the ground that FIR was lodged after 3 months of the alleged occurrence and there is no eye witness and no case is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that the charge has also been framed which is under challenge in this petition.

The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that there is no illegality and the court has rightly taken the cognizance and framed charge.

It is well known that cases under section 376 IPC merely on the ground of delay it would not be thrown away the proceeding as has been held in several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the High Courts. There are allegations of calling upon the informant and establishing relationship fraudulently even if the relationship has been established on the false marriage that is also required to be proved in the trial. What are the materials in the charge sheet that has not been before this Court and this Court is not in a position to appreciate the materials brought on record of trial court by the investigating agency. The learned court has applied its mind in taking cognizance and has taken cognizance after looking into the materials available in the FIR, charge sheet and other documents and the order framing charge is a speaking order for framing of charge and the only requirement is to explain the charge properly and in clear term that has been done by the learned court. There is no illegality in the order framing charge.

Cr.M.P.No.1224 of 2022 is accordingly dismissed.

I.A. if any also stands disposed of.