ASIT KHAGENDRANATH MITRA Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Asit and Beli are parents of accused No.1 Avishek Asit Mitra and they are also arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 in Sessions Case No.202 of 2013 arising out of Crime No.234 of 2013 for offences punishable under Sections 376, 312, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ' IPC ' for the sake of brevity). These offences came to be registered on the basis of a report lodged by the prosecutrix on 18/05/2013 with Police Station, Borivali after due inquiry of her earlier complaint by the police authority. The prosecutrix is an adult lady aged about 26 years and she was working as Assistant Manager with Grand Hyatt Hotel at Mumbai. Both revision petitioners applied for discharge by moving an application Exhibit 3 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai and after hearing the parties, by the impugned Order dated 12/09/2014, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai was pleased to reject the said application. Feeling aggrieved by rejection of their application for discharge, both revision petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 have filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) At the outset, let us put on record the reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai for rejecting the application for discharge filed by parents of accused No.1 Avishek Asit Mitra. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that involvement of parents of accused No.1 Avishek in the Crime in question is there because accused No.1 Avishek went on giving promise to the complainant i.e. the First Informant that he will convince his parents and after their consent he will perform the marriage. It is further observed by the Court below that accused No.1 Avishek informed the complainant i.e. the First Informant that his father is at Lucknow and he will return on Sunday i.e. on 30/12/2012. Accused No.1 Asit further informed that he will keep his father present at Borivali Police Station where they will take the decision. The learned Court below further observed that by taking name of his parents accused No.1 Asit went on keeping sexual intercourse with the complainant i.e. the First Informant. These are the only reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the application for discharge moved by the revision petitioners claiming discharge from the Sessions Case pertaining to Section 376 , 312 , 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

(3.) It is well settled that revisional jurisdiction is an extraordinary jurisdiction, which is required to be exercised rarely when there is glaring defect of procedure or manifest error on the point of law resulting in miscarriage of justice. If perversity in the impugned order is pointed out by bringing to the notice of the Court that relevant material was not considered or if it is noticed that irrelevant material favourably considered and relied for passing the impugned Order, then exercise of revisional jurisdiction is justified.