Dismissed

Moin Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Aug 2021Cr.Rev./479/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the framing of a charge under Section 366A IPC. The Court held that alteration of the charge is not a ground for revision under Supreme Court precedent. While dismissing the petition, it granted liberty to the trial court to alter the charge to Section 366 IPC in future.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition dismissed; Trial Court granted liberty to alter the charge from Section 366A to Section 366 IPC.

Moin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 479 of 2020

¶3

Moin Ansari …. ….Petitioner -Versus1. State of Jharkhand 2. Sanjana Kumari …. …. Opp. Parties

¶4

Sanjana Kumari

¶5

CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶6

……. For the Petitioner : - Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Adv. For the State : -Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P. P.

¶7

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities were good.

¶8

06/10.08.2021

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶10

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.03.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih in POCSO Case No. 102 of 2019 in connection with Bengabad P. S. Case No. 490 of 2019.

¶11

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that offence under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out as basic ingredient under Section 366 A of the Indian Penal Code is that “a minor girl must be induced for another person” and on that basis it has been submitted that framing of charge under Section 366A is bad in law.

¶12

On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that it is a case of alteration of charge and the Court can alter the charge at any stage and further the Court below has looked into the matter and framed the charge under Section 366 A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

As per the mandate of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 , it is clear that revision is maintainable in the intermediary order and not in the interlocutory order. Intermediary order means, if it is reversed, proceeding ends. Alteration of charge cannot be a ground for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

¶14

In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed.

¶15

However, the Trial Court is at liberty to alter the charge from Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code to Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Kamlesh/

¶17

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Moin Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moin Ansari 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

Urmila Devi And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Laxman Prasad Mandal Alias Laxman Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Antu Chaudhary Alias Puttu Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjan Raj Alias Manu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nagen Das Alias Nagendra Nath Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kanhai Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand