JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Earlier thrice notices have been issued to the O.P. No. 2 and in spite of valid service of notice, O.P. No. 2 has chosen not to appear in the matter. Further this court by order dated 11.12.2023 has directed the petitioner to take steps for substituted service of notice upon O.P. No. 2 and pursuant to that the said steps have also been taken and a supplementary affidavit has also been filed annexing the paper cutting of the said paper publication and in view of that this court found that the notice upon the O.P. No. 2 has been effected and that has been recorded in the order dated 04.08.2025 and on that day with a view to provide further one more opportunity to the O.P. No. 2, the matter was adjourned. In the said order, it has further been recorded that it is open for the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State to serve the notice upon O.P. No. 2 through the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station, however, the learned A.P.P., on instruction, submits that steps has been taken and it has been reported that the O.P. No. 2 has not been found, in view of that, this petition is being heard in absence of O.P. No. 2. 2. Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the validity and legality of the order dated 16.07.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad, in connection with S.T. No. 42 of 2018 arising out of C.P. Case No. 2717 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 376 and 498-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner dated 19.03.2018 under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned court. 4. The complaint case was filed by the complainant Rita Devi alleging therein that on 01.04.2010 she was engaged by accused in his ECL Quarter Kumardhubi Colliery for doing work of maid servant on monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/-. It is further alleged that on 11.04.2010 at about 12:00 o'clock petitioner forcibly committed rape upon her, in that course her bangles were broken and she sustained cut injury on her wrist. 2,000/-. It is further alleged that on 11.04.2010 at about 12:00 o'clock petitioner forcibly committed rape upon her, in that course her bangles were broken and she sustained cut injury on her wrist. It is further alleged that when complainant wanted to go police station to institute case against petitioner then he forbade her and also assured her to perform marriage with her and at that time he also put vermilion on her forehead. It is further alleged that on 18.04.2010 accused performed marriage with complainant in Deoghar Temple by taking seven fera before pious fire and thereafter they started living as husband and wife. It is further alleged that on 15.08.2015 petitioner wants to solemnize marriage with another girl, upon that complainant protested then he subjected torture and cruelty upon her and on 17.09.2015 he brutally assaulted the complainant and dragged out her towards railway track in order to commit her murder but on hearing alarm of complainant, nearby people assembled then he fled away after locking the door and leaving the complainant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after due inquiry, process has been issued and cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 376 and 498-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioner and after appearance of the petitioner, the trial has proceeded and it was triable by the Sessions Court, that’s why, the case was committed to the court of Sessions by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad by order dated 20.01.2018. He submits that the petitioner has filed the discharge petition dated 19.03.2018 under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., which has been rejected by the learned court. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not looked into the unimpeachable document i.e. the judgments dated 08.12.2017 and 14.09.2015 of the learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Dhanbad and learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 412 of 2015 as well as Original Suit No. 55 of 2015 respectively, as in both the judicial pronouncements, both the learned courts have held that O.P. No. 2 is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner and further both the judicial pronouncements have attained the finality, as the same were never challenged before any Higher court. He submits that in view of the above-mentioned two judgments, it has been proved that the O.P. No. 2 is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the case has been registered under Section 498-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . He further submits that the allegation under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is also not made out against the petitioner. 6. He submits that the allegations are made that the rape has been committed by the petitioner in the ECL quarter, wherein the Exhibit-A is the document, which is the marksheet issued by the Binova Bhave University dated 30.06.2011 and at that period, the petitioner was pursuing his studies in the said University. He further submits that the petitioner has joined the ECL on 15.01.2012, as in the office of Deputy C.M., In-charge Agent and the quarter was allotted to the petitioner on 17.02.2012 and all the documents have been marked as Exhibits-J, A and B respectively, which has been considered in Original Maintenance Case No. 412 of 2015 arising out of a petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that in view of that clearly a false case has been lodged against the petitioner and the learned court has not appreciated all the documents and has been pleased to dismiss the discharge petition. 7. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the discharge petition has been filed and the learned court has already rejected the same, in view of that the petitioner may face the trial. 8. It is an admitted position that the complaint case was filed against the petitioner under Sections 376 and 498-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and the O.P. No. 2 has also filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, which was numbered as Original Maintenance Case No. 412 of 2015 and the petitioner herein has instituted Original Suit No. 55 of 2015 under Section 11 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT and in the suit of the petitioner, the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 has been annulled in view of the fact that the O.P. No. 2 has admitted that she has already married with another person prior to the alleged marriage with the petitioner. Thus in Section 125 Cr.P.C. petition, the learned Family Judge Court has found that the O.P. No. 2 was already married with Jinanath Das and the learned court further found that the O.P. No. 2 is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, in view of that the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 9. Further Section 11 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT petition of the petitioner herein, being Original Suit No. 55 of 2015, on admission of the O.P. No. 2, the marriage was declared as nullity. Exhibit-2 is the certified copy of the Title Matrimonial Suit No. 459 of 2009, in which, Dinanath Das has brought a case under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT against the wife Rita Devi for restitution of conjugal rites. Exhibit-1 is the certified copy of order-sheet of the same court dated 18.02/2010 and the said Title Matrimonial Suit No. 459/2009 was dismissed as withdrawn. Exhibit- 3 is the Certified Copy of voter list in which the name of Rita Devi is mentioned and her husband name was mentioned as Dinanath Das, the said voter list bears the photo of the voters. Exhibit-4 is certified copy of marriage certificate in between the parties dated 22.06.2015. Exhibit-5 is the Provisional Certificate issued by the BIT Sindri in name of petitioner Surendra Murmu showing that he has completed B.Tech Mining engineering. Exhibit-6 is the Certified Copy of deposition of the Rita Devi in Original Maintenance Case No. 412/2015. In para-3 of her cross-examination this Rita Devi admitted that earlier she was married with Dinanath and he has filed Title Matrimonial Suit No. 459/2009 for her bidai. She has also admitted that she blessed with one son namely Bittu, aged about 5 years by the said wedlock. Exhibit-7 is the certified copy of judgment of Original Suit No. 412/2015 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, that has been filed by said Rita Devi against Surendra Murmu, the present petitioner for her maintenance and that was also dismissed on the ground that she was already married with another person. All these facts have been appreciated by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara, in Original Suit No. 55 of 2015. 10. In light of the above documents, which were already on record, clearly suggests that the O.P. No. 2 was not married with this petitioner. All these facts have been appreciated by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara, in Original Suit No. 55 of 2015. 10. In light of the above documents, which were already on record, clearly suggests that the O.P. No. 2 was not married with this petitioner. The allegations are made that the alleged occurrence is said to be dated 11.04.2010, wherein at that time, the petitioner was doing his study in the Binova Bhave University and that is proved in light of Exhibit-J, which is the marksheet dated 21.04.2011, issued by the Binova Bhave University. The petitioner herein has got the job in ECL on 15.01.2012 by way of Exhibit-A and the quarter was allotted on 17.02.2012 in light of Exhibit-B, wherein the alleged occurrence is said to be dated 11.04.2010. From the documents, it is crystal clear that on the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner was not having any ECL quarter and the allegations are made that rape was made in the said quarter. Further there is no document or any medical certificate to that effect. 11. The principles, governing orders under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., which can be crystallized from the illuminating discourse above, is that are only in those cases where the court is almost certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in a conviction, and is of the view that the time of the court need not be wasted by holding a trial, an order of discharge may be passed-under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.. However, if in case there is a strong suspicion, founded upon some material available on record, which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the commission of the offence by an accused, the framing of the charge would be warranted. No detailed or elaborate enquiry is required to be undertaken at this stage by delaying deep into various aspects of the matter to find out as to whether an accused can be held guilty or not. Neither probable defence of an accused is to be looked into nor has the probative value of the materials on record to be weighed. An order of discharge under Section 227 of the Code would be warranted only in those cases where the court is satisfied that there are no chances of conviction of an accused and the trial would be an exercise in futility. An order of discharge under Section 227 of the Code would be warranted only in those cases where the court is satisfied that there are no chances of conviction of an accused and the trial would be an exercise in futility. In all other cases, an order for charge under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. has to be passed so as to give the prosecution an opportunity to lead evidence and establish the allegations. 12. Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was introduced with the Code with the motive to avoid waste of public time over cases, which did not disclose a prima facie case and to save the accused from avoidable harassment and expenditure. Reference may be made to the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya & Others, (1990) 4 SCC 76 , where in para-5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “5. Section 227 , introduced for the first time in the New Code, confers a special power on the Judge to discharge an accused at the threshold if 'upon consideration' of the record and documents he considers 'that there is not sufficient ground' for proceeding against the accused. In other words his consideration of the record and document at that stage is for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for proceeding with the trial against the accused. If he comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 , if not he will discharge the accused. It must be remembered that this section was introduced in the Code to avoid waste of public time over cases which did not disclose a prima facie case and to save the accused from avoidable harassment and expenditure.” 13. In the aforesaid backgrounds and further considering the principles of discharge which has been discussed hereinabove so far as the present case is concerned and further in light of the above exhibits, it has been proved that the false case under Sections 376 and 498-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE has been lodged and there is no chance of conviction and if the petitioner is put to face the trial that it will waste the public time and the entire efforts will be fruitless. 14. 14. For the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, this court finds that it is a fit case to discharge the petitioner. As such, the order dated 16.07.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad, in connection with S.T. No. 42 of 2018 arising out of C.P. Case No. 2717 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 376 and 498-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner dated 19.03.2018 under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned court, is hereby, set aside. 15. As such, the petitioner is discharged from the case, being S.T. No. 42 of 2018 arising out of C.P. Case No. 2717 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad. 16. This petition is allowed in the above terms and disposed of.