AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State.
The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate XIV, Ranchi in Misc.
Criminal Application No. 682 of 2019 arising out of G.R. Case No.5255 of 2015 (arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 287 of 2015), registered under Section 354A of the I.P.C. whereby and whereunder the application for discharge filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Factual Matrix
Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that informant Lilawati Kumari, met with the petitioner, who is an advocate, in connection with a case. An appointment was fixed at 05:15 P.M. on 20.08.2015, in pursuant to which she visited his house. It is alleged that the petitioner shut the door from inside and pulled her hand with a mala fide intention and brought her towards the bed and attempted to disrobe her. Thereafter, the informant fled from the house and contacted Mahila Helpline and later on she visited Mahila P.S. on 21.08.2015 and thereafter, on their advice, lodged F.I.R.
On the basis of above information, Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 287 of 2015 dated 01.09.2015 was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 354A of the I.P.C.
After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence.
Upon perusal of the charge-sheet and the materials available on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi found a prima facie case made out for the offence under Section 354A of the I.P.C. and accordingly, took cognizance of the offence.
The petitioner has filed a miscellaneous criminal application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge from the alleged charge. The said application was rejected by the learned Trial Court, which has been assailed in this revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a practising advocate and the victim was his client since last 10-15 years. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in legal practice since 1981 and mainly deals with matrimonial disputes. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case only because the prosecutrix has refused to pay the fees due against her. She got handsome amount as alimony from her husband and upon asking the fee, she refused and lodged this false case. It is also submitted that initially, a complaint bearing No. 631 of 2015 was lodged by the victim before Mahila Police Station against the petitioner, wherein Deputy S.P. found the petitioner to be innocent. Thereafter, this F.I.R. was instituted after considerable delay without offering any reasonable explanation. It is further submitted that no case under Section 354A of the I.P.C. is prima facie made out in this case as per the allegations of the victim and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court has passed a sketchy order only on the basis of cognizance taken for the offence under Section 354A of the I.P.C. after submission of charge-sheet and without discussing any other materials constituting the offence under Section 354A of the I.P.C. and the materials substantiating the allegations made against the petitioner. Hence, impugned order is liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed.
On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the main grounds taken by the petitioner appears to be his probable defence as plea of innocence and dues of his remuneration, while conducting the case of the prosecutrix, which has to be proved during trial of the case and any probable defence relied upon by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage of the proceedings. Learned A.P.P. has further submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered the materials available against the petitioner and finding prima facie case, has rightly passed the impugned order, which suffers from no illegality or infirmity. Therefore, this revision has no merits and fit to be dismissed.
I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.
From perusal of impugned order, it appears that no written objection was filed on behalf of victim in spite of opportunity given to her. The learned Judicial Magistrate has simply stated that cognizance has already been taken for the offence under Section 354A I.P.C. and nothing else incriminating materials has been discussed for arriving at subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate that a prima facie case for proceeding under Section 354A of the I.P.C. against the petitioner is available on record. Therefore, the impugned order appears to be non-speaking order and devoid of reasons.
In view of above discussion and reasons, the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court for providing opportunity to both parties for hearing on the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and pass a fresh well-reasoned order without being prejudiced by any observations of this Court as mentioned above.
Accordingly, this revision is allowed.
Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for information and needful.