Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1055 (JHR)

Chandan Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2008-09-02

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
ORDER AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. 1. Nobody appears on behalf of the parties. 2. Since the application is pending for admission since 2003 and nobody is appearing for the petitioner, and therefore it is being disposed of on the basis of the material available on record at this stage. 3. In this application the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.12.2000 taking cognizance for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It appears that a complaint was filed by one Reshmi Khatoon against Chandan Jha (petitioner) alleging therein that she was a young unmarried lady belonging to a poor family working as a maid servant at a house near Muraroi Police Station, and the accused Chandan Jha was employed as a jeep driver in the office of the Block Development Officer, Maheshpur. It is further alleged that Chandan Jha used to come to the said police station and in course of which he happened to meet the complainant, Reshmi Khatoon and then he developed intimacy with her resulting in his frequent visits to her house and all those occasions he concealing his name and posing himself to be a member of Muslim community, convinced and promised her to marry and in course of that he started cohabiting with her some time at Maheshpur and at some time some other places and also at his house and all those occasion, he used to promise to marry her. Thereafter she conceived and bore the pregnancy of two months, she narrated the entire facts to him and her parents, but the petitioner even refused to talk to her and marry to her. Ultimately the complainant lodged a complaint in the Court. 5. It appears that the A.C.J.M., Pakur directed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (S.D.P.O.) for enquiry into matter and report. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer submitted his report which is annexed as Annexure 2, to this application from which it appears that the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner was found to be true but so far as the allegations against the said B.D.O. was concerned the same was found to be incorrect. On the basis of the said report of the S.D.P.O., the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner only. 6. On the basis of the said report of the S.D.P.O., the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner only. 6. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that on the basis of the report of the S.D.P.O. (Annexure 2) only, the Magistrate has wrongly taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. 7. Under the provision of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which speaks that the Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence after receiving information from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed, therefore, in my view if the learned Magistrate was satisfied only on the basis of the enquiry report of the S.D.P.O then there was no legal bar for him in taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the aforesaid report of the S.D.P.O. 8. In this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, taking cognizance for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, having found no merit, this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.