Jharkhand High Court
Sailendra Nath Bhakat S/O Rengtu Bhakat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:27192]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3150 of 2018
------
1. Sailendra Nath Bhakat S/o Rengtu Bhakat, Aged about- 47 years, Q. No. A/43/337, UCIL, Jadugoda, Colony, P.O.- Jadugoda Mines, P.S.- Jadugoda, District- East Singhbhum.
2. Kalipada Bhakat, S/o Late Khudiram Bhakat, aged about- 53 years, Q. No. B/36/288, UCIL, Jadugoda Colony, P.O.- Jadugoda Mines, P.S.- Jadugoda, District- East Singhbhum.
3. Sikur Sundi, S/o late Churi Sundi, Q. No. Type II/1/7, aged about- 53 years, UCIL, Jadugoda Colony, P.O- Jadugoda Mines, P.S.- Jadugoda, District- East Singhbhum.
4. Jasua Topno S/o late Daud Topno, Aged about- 60 years, Resident of Jayanti Paradies near Nehru Chauk, PO-
Sarjamdah, PS- Parsodih, District- East Singhbhum.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mala Rani Bhakat, W/o. Surendra Nath Bhakat, Residetn of Q. No. Type A/8/61 Jadugoda Colony, P.O- Jadugoda Mines, P.S.- Jadugoda, District- East Singhbhum.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rishav Parasar, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Viveka Nand Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl.P.P.
For the OP No.2 : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Agnivesh, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
1 Cr. M.P. No.3150 of 2018
[2025:JHHC:27192]
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.33 of 2015 of the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila involving the offences punishable under Sections 354B, 392, 452, 406, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also to quash the order dated 02.07.2018 whereby and where under learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 354B, 392, 452, 406, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention used criminal force against the complainant for disrobing her, tore her blouse, removed her saree and attempted to commit rape upon her on 19.09.2015. The complainant raised objection. The witnesses of the case came there and the petitioners fled away but they threatened that on some future occasions, she could not escape and thereafter on 27.09.2015, the petitioners namely Shailendra Nath Bhakat and Kali Bhakat came by a bike and committed robbery by snatching away gold-chain and a bag in which Rs.2,000/- was kept. The Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila in C1 Case No.33 of 2015 vide order dated 18.11.2016 dismissed the complaint holding that no case against the accused persons is made out. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ghatshila, the complainant- opposite party No.2 of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed Criminal Revision No.243 of 2016 which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide order dated 31.07.2017 2 Cr. M.P. No.3150 of 2018 [2025:JHHC:27192] in Criminal Revision No.243 of 2016 and the learned Sessions Judge held that the learned Magistrate has committed an error of law and fact in passing impugned order and set aside the same and remanded the matter back for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that conclusion arrived at by the trial court that the complainant's case appears to be improbable is without any authentic basis. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after the case was remanded by the Sessions Judge, considering the materials available in the record, found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 354B, 392, 452, 406, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to issue summons to the accused-persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case. The husband of the complainant came in contact with the petitioners and persuaded them to invest money and cheated all the petitioners and has taken away several lakhs of rupees from the petitioners and others by playing fraud upon them. At the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner No.2 was on duty in Uranium Corporation of Indian Limited (UCIL), Jadugoda. The petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 also filed several complaint cases against the husband of the complainant in which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. It is next submitted that the ingredients of none of the offences in respect of which the prima facie case was held to be made out by the learned Magistrate is, in fact, made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently 3 Cr. M.P. No.3150 of 2018 [2025:JHHC:27192] oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur being the Criminal Revision No.243 of 2016; hence, the same has attained finality and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by the observation made in the said order, has rightly found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 354B, 392, 452, 406, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the records, this Court finds that there is allegation against the petitioners of being in criminal conspiracy with each other and in furtherance of their common intention, having used criminal force against the complainant with the intention of disrobing her, by tearing her blouse and removing her saree, which if accepted in toto is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 354B and they did the same after committing house trespass and making preparation for causing hurt to the complainant; this makes out the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code as well.
7. So far as the offence dated 19.09.2015 is concerned and also the offence of 27.09.2015 on which date, the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery which makes out the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code but this Court, after going through the materials available in the record, do not find any offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code as there is no allegation of entrustment of any money to the petitioners by the 4 Cr. M.P. No.3150 of 2018 [2025:JHHC:27192] complainant nor is there any allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property against the petitioners and in the absence of these essential ingredients, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners but the materials available in the record itself is sufficient to constitute prima facie case and the other offences; more so, because of the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.243 of 2016, which has attained finality; having not been challenged in any superior court and the observation of which was binding upon the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, while the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was passing the order dated 02.07.2018 in connection with Complaint Case No.33 of 2015.
8. Because of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated 02.07.2018 is set aside so far as the prima facie case in respect of which the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out only while maintaining the said order in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 354B, 392, 452, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 01st of September, 2025 AFR/ Saroj 5 Cr. M.P. No.3150 of 2018