Allowed

Jitendra Hembrum v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Dec 2019Cr.Rev./624/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge convicted the petitioner by framing charges for false pretences of marriage and sexual exploitation, dismissing a discharge petition while discharging the accused parents due to lack of evidence against them.

What did the court decide?

Framed of charge against the petitioner; discharged of charge against accused parents.

Jitendra Hembrum Vs the State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 624 of 2018 Jitendra Hembram...…............ Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of Jharkhand ………… Opp. Party

¶5

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K.Rana, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶7

6/05.12.2019 Heard the parties.

¶8

The petitioner, in this application, has challenged the order dated 22.03.2018, passed in S.T. No. 34 of 2018, by which the discharge petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, FTC, Bokaro.

¶9

A complaint case was filed, which was sent under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. for registering an FIR under Sections 406, 376, 493/34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is allegation that this petitioner on the false assurance of marriage, established sexual relationship with the complainant/ informant and physically exploited her. When the matter was revealed, the family of both the parties sat together and decided to get them married, but later on, the accused persons, i.e. the petitioner, his father and mother back tracked from their assurance, resulting in this case.

¶10

Charge sheet was submitted against this petitioner and his parents for allegedly committing offence under Sections 376, 493, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused, thereafter, filed an application for discharge. The trial court after considering the entire facts of the case and considering the materials on record, allowed the application of Fulchand Manjhi and Kunti Devi, who are the father and mother of this petitioner and dismissed the petition in respect of this petitioner Jitendra Hembram.

¶11

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no materials in the entire case diary to frame charge against this petitioner. He submits that the victim was a consenting party, as such there is no application of Section 376 IPC in the instant case. He submits that on non-existent ground, this case has been filed.

¶12

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer and submits that there are materials in the case diary to frame charge against this petitioner.

¶13

After hearing the parties and on going through the records, I find that the court below has considered the case of the parties and thereafter

¶14

-2-

¶15

on going through the records, reached to the conclusion that there are no materials in the case diary to frame charge against Fulchand Manjhi and Kunti Devi, so they were discharged. The court found that there are sufficient materials in the case diary against this petitioner Jitendra Hembram. The Court has stated that there are relevant paragraphs in the case diary, which clearly shows that on the false pretext of marriage, physical relationship was developed and thereafter, this petitioner refused to marry the informant. The court held that there are sufficient materials to frame charge against the petitioner and thus, the impugned order was passed.

¶16

While framing charge, it is not necessary to pass a detailed reasoned order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision rendered on 03.12.2019 in Cr. Appeal No. 1820 of 2019 (Bhawna Bai- versus- Ghanshyam & Others ), after referring several judgments of the Supreme Court, has held that it is not necessary to pass a detailed order at the time of framing of charge. If the Judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame the charge against the accused for such offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also reiterated that for framing charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. the Judge is not required to record detailed reasons and there is no necessity to hold an elaborate enquiry.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find no illegality in the impugned order. Thus, this application stands dismissed.

¶18

( Ananda Sen, J )

¶19

Mukund/-cp. 3

Jitendra Hembrum v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Hembrum v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaidhar Sundi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Atish Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Binod Kumar Seth Alias Binod Kumar Alias Binod Bhadani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Selim Sheikh Vs Mohmooda Bibi

Smt Pardeshi Toppo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Munendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand