Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1715 (JHR)

Sunita Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-04

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard Mrs. Rashmi Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Mohan, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 14.06.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in C/1 Case No. 811 of 2015 by which cognizance has not been taken under Sections 145/147/148/149/295/420/ 406/452/454/354 of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC has been affirmed. 3. It appears that a complaint case being C/1 Case No. 811 of 2015 was instituted against the opposite parties herein. After conducting inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.PC, cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate for the offence under Sections 323/427/504/34 of IPC against the opposite party Nos. 9 to 12. Being aggrieved by the fact that cognizance was not taken under other sections since there is also allegation of outraging of modesty and also criminal breach of trust, the petitioner preferred a revision in Cr. Revision No. 109 of 2016 challenging the order dated 01.02.2016, which however was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on 14.06.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the perusal of the complaint petition reveals that the accused persons variously armed had entered into the godown of the complainant and apart from destroying various articles had also taken away some articles and the modesty of the complainant was also outraged. She further submits that since there is specific allegation against the opposite parties as could be deciphered from paragraph 7 of the complaint petition, cognizance should have also been taken under Sections 145/147/148/149/295/420/406/452/454/354 of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC apart from the other sections for which cognizance has already been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel further submits that the revisional Court has referred to an email which does not suggest that the incident as alleged had not taken place. It has been submitted that the revisional order be set aside and the learned Judicial Magistrate be directed to take cognizance for the offence under Sections 145/147/148/ 149/295/420/406/452/454/354 of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 6. It has been submitted that the revisional order be set aside and the learned Judicial Magistrate be directed to take cognizance for the offence under Sections 145/147/148/ 149/295/420/406/452/454/354 of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 6. It appears from the complaint petition that several dates of incident were mentioned which is 18.09.2014, 19.09.2014, 01.11.2014 and 13.12.2014, but the complaint case was filed on 13.04.2015 which was about 4 months after the last date of occurrence. The opposite parties having been noticed in the revision case had appeared and filed an email from which it appears that no allegation is there of theft and illegal removal of articles. Moreover, the witnesses examined by the complainant are husband and employees of the firm of which the complainant is the owner. The circumstances enumerated above thus lead to a conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to fortify or substantiate the allegations made in the complaint petition so as to compel the Court to take cognizance under Sections 145/147/148/149/295/420/406/452/454/354 of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed in detail the entire facets of the case and thereafter dismissed the revision application. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 14.06.2017 passed by the learned revisional Court and the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and in such view of the matter there being no merit in this application this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.