AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding as well as the order dated 05.06.2018 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No.77 of 2018, arises out of Birni P.S.Case No.102 of 2017, G.R.No.2610 of 2017 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner for committing offence under sections 341, 376/511 and 306/511 IPC, pending in the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih.
Sessions Trial No.77 of 2018 arising out of Birni P.S.Case No.102 of 2017 which was registered on the written report dated 10.09.2017 by one Sabiya Devi alleging therein that on 02.09.2017 at about 3.00 p.m. informant had gone to work in her field in the village Dab within Birni Police Station, Giridih, and when she was returning to her residential house, the accused petitioner Bhuneshwar Yadav had caught hold her from behind and attempted to outrage her modesty by tearing her blouse and tried to throw her down on the ground but informant resisted and inflicted tooth bite and turn his ganji and saved herself. However, when the news of this occurrence spread in the village the informant was shocked and due to this she consumed poison. The Charge has been framed by order dated 05.06.2018.
Mr. Dayal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court order is cryptic one whereby charge has been framed. He further submits that in view of the allegations the ingredients of Section 306 and 376 of the IPC read with section 511 IPC are not made out and the order framing charge is fit to be quashed.
Mr. Sahay, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He submits that the learned court after going through the materials on record has framed the charge.
On perusal of the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 it appears that the learned P.P. has described the evidence available on the case diary and submitted that there is sufficient materials available in the case diary for framing charge under sections 341, 376/511 and 306/511 IPC and considering all these materials available on the record the learned court has framed the charge under those sections. On perusal of the FIR, it transpires that there is allegations of outraging the modesty of the informant. There is allegation also of consuming poison and defaming of the name of the informant. It appears that there is no illegality in framing of charge and, accordingly, Cr.M.P.No.3540 of 2018 is dismissed.