Talha Sakib vs The State of Jharkhand and Sahin Kahakasa

Harish Chandra Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2013, passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in S.T. No. 20 of 2013, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected by the Court below.

The petitioner has been made accused in Katkamsandi (Pelawal) P.S. Case No. 45 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 727 of 2012, for the offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code. There is direct allegation against the petitioner to have sexually exploited the informant on the false pretext of marrying her.

The case was investigated by the police and after investigation the charge-sheet was filed u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Session. The petitioner filed application u/s 228 of the Cr.P.C. submitting that the offence u/s 376 was not made out against the petitioner, as the informant was about 19 years old and whatever relationship was there, it was with the consent of the informant. The Court below, discussing the material on record, has found that the consent given by the victim girl was not voluntarily, rather it was on the false pretext of marrying her, and accordingly the offence was made out against the petitioner u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, rejected the application filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, the sexual relationship between the parties was with consent and accordingly, the offence cannot be made out u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

There is direct allegation against the petitioner to have sexually exploited the victim girl on the false pretext of marrying her. It is well settled that the consent obtained on the false pretext of marrying, is no consent in the eyes of law, and accordingly, the offence u/s 376 is clearly made out against the petitioner. The Court below has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in this connection in the impugned order. In the facts and circumstance of this case, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.