SUNIL MISHRA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 03.01.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in a case arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 300 of 2013 instituted under Sec. 354 -B of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Sec. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), has been rejected. The facts giving rise to the present revision application lie in a narrow compass: At the instance of the informant Radha Rani, the aforesaid case was instituted with the allegation that while the informant was passing through Adityapur overbridge on way to Dindli Market, a man called her from behind but she could not understand but when the same man again called her only then she understood that she was being called out. The said man came near her and pulled her Shawl and keeping some sharp edge thing on her abdomen asked her to move on his direction or else would be killed. In the light of motorcycle, she saw the face of the said man, who had chased her earlier also on several occasion. She followed the said man and came near a ditch where she was asked to sit down with some ulterior motive but the informant anyhow pushed the said man and fled away. She disclosed the name of the said person as Sunil Mishra, a shopkeeper in Dindli Market.

(2.) The police on completion of the investigation, submitted the charge -sheet against the petitioner under Sec. 354 -B of I.P.C. Whereafter, the cognizance of offence was taken. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a petition under Sec. 239 of the Code for his discharge but the same was rejected vide order dated 3.1.2015 holding sufficiency of material and prima facie case against the petitioner for framing charge. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Mr. P.A.S. Pati learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order impugned as perverse and bad in law seriously contended that there is absolutely no direct or indirect evidence in the entire case diary showing the involvement of this petitioner in the instant case. It was also submitted that the elements responsible to constitute the offence under Sec. 354 -B I.P.C. are not available and no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and that besides the evidence of the victim lady -the informant, there is no other evidence on record to show the complicity of this petitioner rather the informant is a lady of questionable character and it is her profession to lodge cases against the people with a motive to blackmail them and the independent witnesses examined during investigation have also not supported the prosecution version.