High Court disposed of a challenge to a Sessions Court order refusing to commit a rape case, declining to express a final opinion on merits to avoid prejudice and granting liberty to file further petitions if evidence arises during trial.
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.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13706 of 2011 (2) dt.02-08-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13706 of 2011
| ====================================================== Nirmala Devi wife of Sri Raghubans Roy, resident of village-Chak Sikandra, P.S.-Tajpur, District - Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER |
|
|---|---|
| 2 | 02-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. |
| In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order | |
| dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Sessions Court, Samastipur in | |
| Criminal Revision No. 625 of 2010 by which the court below has refused to interfere with the order dated 17/07/2010 by which the court of Magistrate refused to commit the case to the court of |
|
| Sessions on the ground that the material and evidences does not disclose a prima facie case under section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. |
The counsel for the petitioner submits that from the F.I.R. and other materials it appears that it was a case of section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the court of Sessions has wrongly refused to give direction to the court of Magistrate for remitting back the matter to the court of Sessions treating the case
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13706 of 2011 (2) dt.02-08-2012
of rape.
It appears that the court below has considered the averment and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has come to a conclusion that essential element for constituting of offence of rape is missing.
This Court at this stage does not intend to give any final opinion on merit otherwise it may cause prejudice to either of the party. If any such evidence comes during the trial, the petitioner will have a liberty to file an appropriate petition before the court below and the court below will pass the order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
Mahesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Court erred in refusing to commit the case on the ground that the material did not disclose a prima facie case of rape under Section 376 IPC?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Nirmala Devi
The State Of Bihar
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
