Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 369 (JHR)

Bijay Sao v. State of Jharkhand

2014-03-07

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
Order : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No. 2. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in Cr. Rev. No. 105 of 2011, whereby the revision preferred by the opposite party No. 2 against the order dated 3.6.2011 dismissing her Complainant Case No. 290 of 2010 in the enquiry stage, has been allowed by the revisional Court below and the matter has been remanded back to the Trial Court below for conducting fresh enquiry and for passing the order afresh in accordance with law. 3. I.A. No.1385 of 2014 has been filed for stay of the further proceedings in the Court below, as during the pendency of this application, upon enquiry the Court below has found the prima facie offence under Sections 323,341,420, 504 / 34 against the accused persons by order dated 20.2.2014. 4. From the record it appears that a complaint case was filed by the opposite party No. 2 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 290 of 2010. In the said complaint the petitioner and the other persons were made accused, alleging that the petitioner was a contractor and the complainant was a labour under him. The petitioner learnt that there was some matrimonial dispute between the complainant and her husband and thereafter he started coming close to the complainant stating that he would keep her as his wife and shall also maintain her children. The proposal of the petitioner was refused by the complainant and the complainant ultimately stopped working with the petitioner, but the petitioner and his men went to the parents' place of the complainant and pressurised them to ask the complainant to accept him as her husband. Upon assurances given by the petitioner, the family members of the complainant asked the petitioner to perform the Court marriage with the complainant, but he stated that the Court marriage could not be performed in view of the pending dispute between the complainant and her husband, but till then some rituals were agreed to be performed by the petitioner in a Temple, which was performed and thereafter the complainant started living with the petitioner. It is also alleged that she became pregnant and her pregnancy was terminated, again on the same pretext that the dispute between the complainant and her husband was still pending. It is further alleged that the petitioner was also instrumental in getting the dispute between the complainant and her husband finally culminating in dissolution of the said marriage. Thereafter, the complainant asked the petitioner to marry her, but he refused to marry her. There is also allegation against the petitioner to have misappropriated the money which she had received as compensation from her first husband. 5. It appears from the impugned order that the Court below upon entering into an enquiry, dismissed the complaint petition u/s 203 of the Cr.P.C., against which the complainant preferred the revision before the revisional Court below. The revisional Court below, discussing the allegation against the petitioner in the complaint and also discussing the materials on record, found that there were specific allegations against the petitioner of cohabiting with the lady under false promise as also of carrying miscarriage to her without her consent, and accordingly, the revisional Court below set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and remanded the matter back for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, almost with the same allegation a police case was also instituted by the complainant against him for the offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which is undergoing trial. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is duplication of the proceedings and accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the police case was filed only for the offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that she was sexually exploited by the petitioner on the false pretext of marrying her, but the present complaint petition relates to the other offences, i.e., misappropriation of money of the complainant, as also the miscarriage caused to her without her consent, and the other allegations which have been made in the complaint petition. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the police case was lodged against the petitioner only for one offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no other allegation in the F.I.R., which has been brought on record. So far as the present complaint is concerned, it relates to other offences, which relate to the misappropriation of money of the complainant, of causing miscarriage to her without her consent and other offences as detailed in the complaint petition. 9. In the backdrop of these facts, do not see any illegality in the impugned order passed by the revisional Court below asking the Court below to enter into an enquiry afresh and to pass the order afresh in accordance with law. The fact remains that in the present case, upon enquiry the Court below has found the prima facie offence under Sections 323, 341, 420, 504/34 against the accused persons by order dated 20.2.2014, and the petitioner has filed the I.A. No.1385 of 2014 for stay of the further proceeding in the Court below. 10. I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order, passed by the revisional Court below, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application, which is accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the I.A. No. 1385 of 2014 also stands dismissed. Application dismissed.