The High Court quashed an order rejecting a discharge application without discussing investigation materials. It remanded the matter to the Sessions Judge to consider evidence properly within six weeks.
Impugned order dated 9.8.2016 quashed and set aside with remand and direction to pass fresh order within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1217 of 2016
-- Vijay Lohar @ Bijay Lohar. .....Petitioner
Versus
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : APP. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. A.K. Agrawal, Advocate
07/6.8.2018 Heard the parties.
This application is directed against the order dated 9.8.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jamshedpur in connection with S.T. No. 383 of 2015, by which the discharge application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.
Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the second attempt by the O.P. No. 2 in falsely implicating the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that earlier a case was instituted under sections 366A, 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the petitioner had established physical relationship with the O.P. No. 2 on the pretext of marriage. Learned counsel submits while referring to Cr. Revision No. 577 of 2010 that the petitioner was discharged from the said allegations and subsequent thereto, SC/ST Birsa Nagar P.S. Case No. 7 of 2013 was instituted. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations made in SC/ST Birsa Nagar P.S. Case No. 7 of 2013 is basically a fall out of the allegations made in the earlier round of litigation. Learned counsel submits that merely the averments made in the FIR have been considered and there is no allegation prima facie with respect to the evidence collected in course of investigation, which would suggest the rejection of discharge application.
Mr. A.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
It appears that the petitioner had moved this Hon’ble Court in Cr. Revision No. 577 of 2010 against an order refusing discharge in S.T. No. 253 of 2009, in which this Court by order dated 3.1.2012 had set aside the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur and had discharged the petitioner from the offence under sections 366A /376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, another case being SC/ST Birsa Nagar P.S. Case No. 7 of 2013 was instituted, in which after chargesheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and discharge application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the
-2-
impugned order dated 9.8.2016. The impugned order dated 9.8.2016 merely reveals the allegations made in the FIR and there is no discussion of any material collected in course of investigation, which would lead to rejection of discharge application or otherwise.
The impugned order dated 9.8.2016 therefore in absence of appropriate reason is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st , Jamshedpur to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the respective parties and on proper consideration of the materials collected in course of investigation.
The exercise indicated above should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
This application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)
Rakesh/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the discharge application is sustainable in absence of discussion on investigation materials.
Whether the dismissal of the discharge application exceeded the scope of the FIR.
Whether the High Court should quash and remit the matter for proper consideration.
Vijay Lohar @ Bijay Lohar
The State of Jharkhand
Anupa Mukhi
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
