Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1153 (JHR)

Ranu Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-09-22

H.C.MISHRA

body2015
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the private opposite parties. 2. The complainant petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.2006 passed by Sri D. Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 612 of 2006, wherein, the Court below has not found any prima facie offence under Sections 447, 354, 500, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24.5.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, whereby, the revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the Revisional Court below. 3. The petitioner being the complainant in C/1 Case No. 612 of 2006, filed the complaint case in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, from which it appears that both the parties are neighbors and primarily, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place due to the land dispute between the parties, alleging that the accused persons had encroached upon the land of the complainant. It is also alleged that the accused persons had criminally trespassed over the land of the complainant and abused the complainant in filthy languages and the accused Dilip Kumar Biswas also tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant by catching her hand and Sari, but anyhow, she was saved by her husband. The complaint petition was filed for the alleged offence under Sections 447, 427, 354, 500, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and three witnesses, including the husband of the complainant, were examined in the enquiry stage, on the basis of which, the prima facie offence under Sections 323, 427, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code was found against the accused persons and summers were ordered to be issued. The complainant, aggrieved by the fact that no prima facie offence under Sections 447, 354, 500, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code was found, filed the revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, which has been dismissed by a detailed order dated 24.5.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2007, which has also been challenged in the present application. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, in the complaint petition, it is also alleged that the accused persons had criminally trespassed over the land of the complainant and abused the complainant in filthy languages and the accused Dilip Kumar Biswas also tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant by catching her hand and Sari, but anyhow, she was saved by her husband. It is accordingly submitted that the offence under Sections 447, 354, 500, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code was also made out against the accused persons, but the Court below has not taken cognizance against the accused persons illegally and accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private opposite parties have submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and taking into consideration the materials on record, the Court below has rightly not found any prima facie offence under Sections 447, 354, 500, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that this application is fit to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has discussed the materials in detail and so far as the allegation against the opposite parties of outraging the modesty and abusing her in filthy languages is concerned, in which, it was stated that she was saved by her husband, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge shows that when the Court below confronted the husband of the petitioner on these allegations, he preferred to keep quiet and did not give any answer. Learned Sessions Judge has also found that though the dispute between the parties was with regard to the piece of land, but it was admitted that no legal action had been taken against the accused persons for the alleged encroachment of land. It was, accordingly, found that on the basis of the materials on record, the cognizance was rightly taken against the accused persons by the Court below. 8. It was, accordingly, found that on the basis of the materials on record, the cognizance was rightly taken against the accused persons by the Court below. 8. From the order passed by the Revisional Court, it is apparent that on the basis of the materials on record, the Court below was correct in not finding any prima facie offence under Sections 447, 354, 500, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. I do not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.