IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 581 of 2015 Sudev Kumar Manjhi @ Sudev Manjhi, son of Bhuban Chandra Majhi, resident of village-Aamdanga, PO and PS Ghatshila, Dist.-East Singhbhum, now residing at U.C.I.L. Narwa Pahar Mines Colony, PO and PS Jaduguda, District East Singhbhum Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Uma Majhi @ Dhawria, wife of Sudev Manjhi, D/o Late Phool Chand Dhawria, resident of village- Aamdanga, PS and PO Ghatshila, Dist. East Singhbhum Opposite Parties
--------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
--------- For the Petitioner : M/s Pooja Kumari, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.
--------- 03/Dated: 31/08/ 2015 The instant revision is directed against the order dated 22.04.2015 passed in S.T. case no. 392 of 2014 whereby the application for discharge under section
227 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatshila. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the F.I.R. was instituted under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., on the basis of complaint in April 2008 and charge-sheet submitted under sections 498A, 494 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the petitioner had assaulted the informant in the year 2002 during the Makar Festival as the complainant parents had failed to fulfill the demand of the petitioner. It is submitted that the marriage took place on 29.08.1995 and the petitioner and the complainant resided together whereafter this petitioner had instituted Matrimonial Suit no. 42 of 1997 in the court of Additional District Judge-III, Jamshedpur, and decree for divorce was granted by the decree dated 19.12.2000. That this fact was brought to the knowledge of the trial court but the court below without appreciating the fact that the divorce was granted in year, 2000, and there was no question of the petitioner residing with the complainant in the alleged period, has rejected the prayer for discharge under section 498a i.p.c. That the Doctor has not supported the allegation that any medical termination of pregnancy was conducted on the complainant. That the petitioner has married another lady after getting the divorce accordingly, the offences u/s 494 and 313 I.P.C. is not attracted. Learned APP has submitted that divorce has been obtained ex-parte and no papers were produced before the police in course of investigation. It is argued that trial court has rightly held that at the time of framing of the charge, the material collected during investigation is to be looked into for considering whether they are sufficient to make out a prima facie case. Heard. Perused the impugned order. It is evident that the Doctor examined in para-82, has denied to have conducted any M.T.P. on the informant. The argument advanced by the counsel that the divorce has been granted though appears to be robust but, such document was not produced by the petitioner before the investigating officer. Whether the divorce was obtained on contest or is an ex-parte order can only be appreciated when the evidence is led during trial and not at this stage when the material in case diary is silent on this aspect. The trial court has considered the material available on record and found that a prima-facie case is made out to proceed under sections 494, 498A and 313 I.P.C. As far as charge under section
313 I.P.C. is concerned as per the statement of the Doctor no medical termination of pregnancy was conducted on the petitioner thus, there is no material on record to frame charge under section 313 I.P.C. and the petitioner is discharged of the charge for the offence under section 313 I.P.C. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner for adducing evidence regarding divorce as and when evidence is led during trial and the trial court shall pass necessary order on merit, without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order. With the aforesaid direction the revision application is disposed of as allowed in part. (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Tarun/-