GIRISH KUMAR SHARAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitions are taken together almost for the common cause. Petitioner Girish Kumar Sharan has preferred the Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2008 by invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order impugned dated 15.7.2008 passed in G.R. No. 1276 of 2006, arising out of Gopikandar P.S. Case No. 18 of 2006 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 417/376/315 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and for quashment of his entire criminal prosecution whereas, the Cr. Rev. No. 565 of 2009 is directed against the order impugned dated 7.7.2009 passed in S.C. Case No. 159 of 2009, arising out of above case, by which the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Durnka, after hearing the parties, found prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner Girish Kumar Sharan for the alleged offences and proposed charges under Sections 376/417/313 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, charges were framed for the said offences.

(2.) Prosecution story in short was that the prosecutrix Prem Lata Hembrom had been visiting the Gopikandar Branch of the State Bank of India with her mother for drawing the family pension of her mother and at that time, the petitioner was the Branch Manager of the said Branch. It was stated that the petitioner had offered the prosecutrix that he would provide job of peon to her in the Bank which would be regularized after completion of one year of her temporary job. Pursuant to such assurance, she started working as a peon in the said Bank on temporary basis and the Manager-petitioner used to give Rs.800/- per month to her. She alleged that petitioner used to tease her during banking hours, but she tolerated his conduct and after completion of one year of her temporary job, when she requested to regularize her job, the petitioner asked her to come to his residence on Sunday at about 2:00 p.m. situated at Dumka for putting her signatures on some forms. Pursuant to such direction, she visited the house of the petitioner. She found him alone in the house, however, he went out by saying that he was going for consultation and returned quite late in the evening and as there was no bus in the evening for the prosecutrix to return back to her home the petitioner persuaded her to stay there in the night and she stayed. It was alleged that in the night when the petitioner attempted to outrage her modesty, she protested, to which petitioner threatened to satisfy his need otherwise job would not be regularized, finding no way out she succumbed to the demand of physical relationship under pressure and she could not oppose. In the morning, she returned back and the petitioner continued making physical relationship with her at several occasions however, she was threatened to be removed from the job in case of communicating such matter to else. She further alleged that the petitioner even used to visit her house in absence of her parents and there also he used to establish physical relationship with her and once upon a time, when she became pregnant, her pregnancy was terminated at the instance of the petitioner at Siuri (West Bengal). When the petitioner was transferred to Maslia, she was removed from the job by the new incumbent of the Bank, who took charge and even then, the petitioner continued having sex with her on the assurance that he would get her job regularized. The prosecutrix after sometimes realized that she was being physically exploited by the petitioner, then she threatened him that a case would be instituted against him, to which she was asked to do whatever she liked. Then she went to a telephone booth where she came across one Manoj Kumar who introduced her to one Manoj Pandey to whom she narrated the entire occurrence. Finally, she alleged that she was a tribal girl and that the petitioner had established sexual relationship with her for years on the pretext that he would provide job to her and for the act of the petitioner her life was ruined. A case was instituted on the written report of the prosecutrix for the alleged offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Deputy Superintendent of Police was assigned to investigate the allegation. Investigating Officer after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet for the alleged offence under Sections 417/376/315 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken in those Sections by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.

(3.) The learned Sr. Counsel Mr. P.P.N. Roy at the outset submitted that no offence under Sections 417/376/315 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioner, even on the face value of the allegation as made in the written report by the prosecutrix opposite party No. 2. As a matter of fact, prosecutrix had applied for loan under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna Scheme for Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Gopikandar Branch of the State Bank of India where the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager, against which a sum of Rs.76,000/- was sanctioned to the prosecutrix under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna Scheme. Since the informant-prosecutrix defaulted in repayment of the instalments, the petitioner requested her by various letters for repayment of loan, to which she contacted the petitioner for the waiver, to which the petitioner declined to do so as against the public policy she was asked to pay back the loan amount plus interest thereon to the Bank. The prosecutrix in league with one Manoj Rai threatened the petitioner either to deposit the entire amount due to her from his own pocket, otherwise rape case would be instituted against him. They started making threatening calls, to which the petitioner had given written information on 3.10.2006 to the Superintendent of Police, Dumka.