Asim Kumar Roy, J. - (1.) In connection with a Sessions Trial in which the petitioners have been arraigned as accused moved an application for discharge under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the Learned Court below rejected their such prayer for discharge and framed charge under Ss. 366A/368/372/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. In this criminal revision petitioners challenged both the orders of the Sessions Court rejecting their prayer for discharge as well as the order of framing charge.
(2.) Mr. Sekhar Basu, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of this application vehemently urged that there was no justification for rejecting the petitioners' prayer for discharge and in framing charge. According to him there was no materials to support the decision of the trial court. He raised the following points in support of this application for quashing of the charge; (a) The statement of the victim girl recorded under Sec. 164 of the Code clearly indicates that the present petitioners have played no role in her leaving the lawful custody of her guardian and the victim girl on her own volition deserted her parents i.e. her lawful guardian. (b) The materials collected by the police during investigation clearly shows that victim girl was never forced to leave Kolkata and go to Hydrabad by the petitioners at any point of time and she left her on wishes. (c) The order impugned were passed mechanically. (d) The factual scenario as depicted in the case clearly portrays a picture which runs contrary to the basic ingredients of an offence punishable under Sec. 368 of the Indian Penal Code. (e) The victim girl had neither been kidnapped nor been abducted at any point of time and in fact she on her own volition left for Hydrabad to pursue a musical carrier. (f) There is no materials on record which can be translated into legally admissible evidence to show that the present petitioners had induced the victim girl in any manner so as to force her or seduce her into illicit intercourse with another person. (g) The statement of the victim girl recorded under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure completely demolished the prosecution case. (h) The charge -sheet materials do not disclose commission of any offence far less any offence punishable under Ss. 366A/368/372/120B of the Indian Penal Code for which charge has been framed. On the other hand, Mr. Joy Sengupta, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State at the very outset submitted that earlier the present petitioners moved another criminal revision, C.R.R. No. 49 of 2005 before this Hon'ble Court against the order of taking of cognizance and for quashing of the charge -sheet relating to the self -same offences for which charge has been framed. According to him the instant criminal revision entirely rests on identical grounds on which the earlier application for quashing was moved before this Court. Mr. Sengupta further submitted however this Hon'ble Court dismissed the said criminal revision and rejected the petitioners prayer for quashing on a specific finding that a prima facie case has been made out justifying submissions of the charge -sheet. Mr. Sengupta then submitted the petitioners against the order of this Hon'ble Court moved a special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarily dismissed the said special leave petition without interfering with the findings of this Hon'ble High Court. Mr. Sengupta now vehemently urged in view of the order passed by this Court and then by the Hon'ble Apex Court the Learned Trial Court was fully justified in framing charge.
(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. I have also perused the Judgement of this Hon'ble High Court in connection with C.R.R. No. 49 of 2005, which was earlier moved by the present petitioner before this Court seeking quashing of the charge -sheet and order of taking cognizance, produced at the time of hearing of this application as well as the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court annexed with this criminal revision.;