ASHA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties through video conferencing.

(2.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned District Judge-II-cum-Special Judge (A.C.B.), Dhanbad in Special Case No.16 of 2013, M.C.A. No.1760 of 2019 (C.N.R. No.JHDH01-009196- 2019) whereby and where under, the learned court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be discharged.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that petitioner is admittedly a lady who is not a public servant and the allegation against the petitioner is that her husband took a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- in her name for admission of their son and daughter from Sidharth Jha @ Raman Jha. It is further alleged that this case has been instituted on the direction of Lakayukta, Ranchi. The written complaint to Lokayukta was made by Sidharth Jha @ Raman Jha who is the younger brother of the Partha Sarthi Jha. Partha Sarthi Jha is a contractor who carries out his work in the name and style of Usha Enterprises. The said loan amount was transferred to the bank account of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner did not return the said money to Sidharth Jha @ Raman Jha and it is also alleged that the husband of the petitioner has earned money disproportionate to his known source of income. It is also the case of the prosecution that the said Sidharth Jha @ Raman Jha filed Money Suit No.01 of 2012 against the petitioner in the court of Sub Judge-I, Bokaro; though in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Bureau in this revision, it has wrongly been mentioned that the petitioner was not a party to the said money suit. It is also the case of the prosecution that earlier the said Sidharth Jha @ Raman Jha filed complaint case no.167 of 2011 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro against the petitioner and her husband alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406/34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, basing upon which FIR was registered but the said case has ended in compromise and the offences were compounded by the trial court of that case in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 320 of the Cr.P.C.. It is also the case of the prosecution that the husband of the petitioner lodged a case for the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 being S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No. 2 of 2011 against the said Sidharth Jha @ Raman Jha and Manish Kumar Jha. In the present case after investigation charge sheet has been submitted inter alia against the petitioner for having committed offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as under section 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.