In a criminal revision petition, the High Court dismissed the plea for quashing of orders affirming cognizance in a rape case, holding that a second revision is not maintainable absent injustice and sufficient material supports the IPC 376 charge.
Petition dismissed; pending I.A. disposed of; interim order vacated.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2500 of 2016
Binod Rai
…… Petitioner
Versus
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate
07/Dated: 10/11/2022
Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned for the petitioner, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
This petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 15.09.2015 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2015 whereby order dated 23.04.2015 passed by learned S.D.J.M, Sahibganj in P.C.R. Case No. 573 of 2014 has been affirmed.
Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that after investigation police submitted final form stating therein that the petitioner is a lady of questionable remarks. He further submits that the O.P. No. 2 has relationship with several persons of her locality. He submits that alleged occurrence is of 28.03.2013 and the F.I.R. has been lodged on 23.10.2013. He submits that there is unexplained delay of 7 months in lodging the F.I.R. He further submits that from perusal of statement of the complainant on S.A., it appears that when the petitioner refused to marry with the O.P. No. 2, she has lodged the present case. He submits that the petitioner is a married person. He further submits that the complainant/O.P. No. 2 had participated in the marriage and after four months the F.I.R. has been lodged. He submits that the learned court has not appreciated the matter properly and has taken cognizance which was
2
affirmed by the revisional court.
On the other hand, Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that from the materials on record and after examination of complainant and enquiry witnesses, learned court has taken cognizance. He submits that enquiry witnesses and complainant have supported the case of complainant. He submits that cognizance order has been challenged before the revisional court in Cr. Revision No. 35 of 2015 which was also dismissed. He submits that there is no requirement of interfering with the impugned orders.
In view of submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court gone through the materials on record and finds that there is allegation of 376 I.P.C. against the petitioner. Protest petition was filed as police has not submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and considering the evidence of enquiry witnesses as well as S.A. of the complainant, learned court has taken cognizance by order dated 23.04.2015 and the learned court after examining the enquiry witnesses came to the conclusion that without consent the petitioner has made physical relationship with the complainant. This order was challenged before the revisional Court and the revisional court passed a reasoned order. The Revisional Court has gone through the materials on record and looked into the evidence of enquiry witness nos. 2 and 3 as well as para 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the case diary. Medical report was examined by the revisional court and the revisional court rightly came to the conclusion that sufficient materials are available on record to fulfill the ingredients of Section 376 of I.P.C. against the petitioner and dismissed the revision petition by order dated 15.09.2015.
There is no illegality in the revisional order. It is well settled that if no injustice is done in the garb of section 482 Cr.P.C. petition second revision is not maintainable. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when no injustice is done by the lower court's order in a rape case?
Whether sufficient materials on record fulfill the ingredients of Section 376 IPC to sustain the cognizance order in rape case?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Binod Rai
The State of Jharkhand
Sulekha Kumari
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court