Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 422 (JHR)

Anand Kumar Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-22

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 17.10.2001 passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Kotwali P.S case no.401 of 2001 (G.R.No.2101 of 2001) whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner. 3. The facts giving rise to this application are that the informant lodged a case alleging therein that she a resident of Gumla has been pursuing her studies in Mahendra Prasad College, Ranchi by residing in Pyadatoli, Upper Bazar, Ranchi. The petitioner, Anand Kumar Sahu in the year 1996 at the time of Dusserha handed over a letter to her wherein it was stated that since both belongs to same caste, he would like to marry her if she develops love for him. Thereupon, both of them became quite intimate. One day, the petitioner came to her residence where again he asked that he will marry her and on such promise, she had had sex with her. Thereupon, she went on having sex with this petitioner. After some days, when she found that she has become pregnant, the petitioner asked her to get the pregnancy terminated as he will be looked down by the society for having child before the marriage. Thereafter she consumed medicine but it was quite strange for her to find that the petitioner stopped talking her. When she disclosed all these things to her parents, her father came to this petitioner and made request to marry his daughter but the petitioner refused. On such allegation, a case was registered as Kotwali P.S. Case no.401 of 2001 under Sections 376 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code. After submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offences alleged was taken, vide order dated 17.10.2001 which is under challenge. 4. It has been stated in the petition that the prosecutrix was major and that she had had sex with this petitioner with her own volition and consent and thereby the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It has been stated in the petition that the prosecutrix was major and that she had had sex with this petitioner with her own volition and consent and thereby the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. From perusal of the first information report, it does appear that it is a case of the prosecutrix that she was having sex with this petitioner, on promise being given by this petitioner to marry her. Even this allegation is accepted tobe true, it cannot be said that this petitioner had had sex with the prosecutrix without her consent, rather it appears from the statements made in the first information report that she had had sex with the petitioner at several occasions and for a considerable long time and thus, it is quite evident that the petitioner never had had sex with the prosecutrix without having her consent. Accordingly, no offence is made out under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. So far as the offence under Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there does not appear to be any ingredient for constituting an offence under Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 17.10.2001 taking cognizance of the offence suffers from illegality and hence, it is set aside. 9. In the result, this application is allowed.