Sonu Ravidas @ Sonu Rabidas vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

I.A. No.4769 of 2025

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset is not pressing I.A. No.4769 of 2025.

Learned counsel for the State has got no objection.

Accordingly, I.A. No.4769 of 2025 is dismissed as not pressed.

I.A. No.2142 of 2024

I.A. No.2142 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the present criminal revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said delay has occurred in obtaining certified copy and in preparation of filing the present criminal revision petition. She submits that in view of that, the delay may kindly be condoned.

Learned counsel for the State has got no serious objection if the delay of 13 days is condoned.

For the reasons assigned in the said I.A., the prayer made in the I.A. is allowed. The delay of 13 days in filing the present criminal revision petition is, hereby, condoned.

Accordingly, I.A. No.2142 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.

Criminal Revision No.135 of 2024

Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State.

This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.157 of 2023, arising out of Pakur Town P.S. Case No.78 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.797 of 2022 (Sessions Trial Case No.70 of 2023), registered for the offence under Sections 376/377/420/417/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby, the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected by the learned Court.

The FIR was registered alleging therein that the informant’s husband was an employee in Animal Husbandry Department and in the year 2016, he died due to ailment of cancer. During his ailment, the husband of the informant had called the petitioner who was working in the same department and asked him to take care of his wife and daughter and help her in getting the pensionary benefit along with appointment of informant on compassionate ground after his death. It was further alleged that the petitioner started helping her in getting pensionary benefit and in the meantime, started establishing physical relationship against her will after threatening to kill her daughter. It was also alleged that the petitioner took the entire pension amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from her account and also took loan of Rs.2,75,000/- from her pension amount. It was then alleged that the accused petitioner took away her ATM Card, cheque book and jewelleries on the pretext of getting her employed in the aforesaid department on compassionate ground but till the date of filing of the case, the informant did not get employment in the aforesaid department on that ground. On these grounds, the FIR being Pakur Town P.S. Case No.78 of 2022 was lodged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of referring contents of the FIR submits that in light of the allegation, no case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, however, charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 376 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance. She further submits that prior to lodging of the present case, the petitioner herein has helped the informant in settling the pension and other retirement benefits of the husband of the informant and it has been alleged that during that period, the petitioner and informant have come in relationship and the relationship was established. On these grounds, she submits that no case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. She then submits that there is money dispute and in view of that false allegation is made against the petitioner. On these grounds, she submits that the learned Court has not appreciated all these facts and has been pleased to dismiss the discharge petition filed by the petitioner and, as such, the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the learned Court has given cogent reason in rejecting the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. He further submits that the learned Court is not required to roam into at this stage and only prima facie the case is required to be looked into by the learned Court. He then submits that even suspicion is there and materials are there, the Court can proceed and in view of that, the learned Court has rightly passed the order. He next submits that the charge-sheet has also been submitted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. On these grounds, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed.

In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties looking into the contents of the FIR, it transpires that the allegation of sexual assault is there against the petitioner. If such a situation is there in a discharge petition, that can be a subject-matter of trial. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is required to be proved in trial. Only due to some money transaction, the allegation at this stage of such nature cannot be said to be not correct, that too when the charge-sheet has also been submitted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is well-settled at the stage of discharge petition, the learned Court is not required to roam into at the initial stage. Even the suspicion is there and materials to that effect are there, the learned Court is competent to frame charge. The allegations are there against the petitioner. The learned Court has rightly passed the order.

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this criminal revision petition is, hereby, dismissed.