- (1.) 06/ 09.05.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2014, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner -III, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 528 of 2013, whereby the application filed by the petitioners u/s 227 of the Cr.P.C., for discharge, has been rejected by the Court below, finding that prima -facie offences u/ss 376, 511 of the Indian Penal Code, is made out against the petitioner Prahalad Prasad, and prima facie offence u/ss 504, 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against all the petitioners. I.A. No. 2639 of 2014 has been filed stating that during the pendency of this application, charge has also been framed against the petitioner Prahalad Prasad for offences u/ss 376, 511 of the Indian Penal Code and against all the petitioners for offences u/ss 504, 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by order dated 26.4.2014 which has been brought on record. The facts of the case lie in a short compass. The F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the written application given by the informant lady to the Officer -in - charge of Argora Police Station, Ranchi, stating that her marriage was fixed with the petitioner, Prahalad Prasad and in all Rs.6,51,000/ - was also paid to the parents as dowry. Thereafter on 18.2.2012 the petitioner Prahalad Prasad wanted to have sex with her, which she refused and ultimately, he refused to marry her. Even the money was not paid back and accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant, on the basis of which Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 133 of 2012 was initially instituted for the offence u/ss 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears that after investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners for the offence u/ss 376, 511, 504, 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and cognizance was taken against them. The case was committed to the Court of Session, where the petitioners filed application for discharge u/s 227 of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners, though has challenged the entire impugned order, but during course of arguments, has confined his submission only challenging the finding as regards the prima facie offence u/s 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and has submitted that this offence cannot be said to be made out against the petitioner Prahalad Prasad on the allegation made in the F.I.R. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner had only allegedly requested to have sex after fixation of marriage with the informant which was refused. There is no other allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R., and accordingly, it is submitted that no offence u/s 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code can be made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order, so far as it finds prima -facie offence u/s 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code also against the petitioner Prahalad Prasad, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, and the order dated 26.4.2014 framing charge to that extent, also cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has pointed out that in the case diary the informant has also stated in her re -statement that at the time of request for sex the petitioner had also removed her stole and had also kissed her. However, it is admitted that apart from this there is other allegation against the petitioner Prahalad Prasad, except the request for sex. Taking into consideration the fact that the marriage of the petitioner was fixed with the informant, in my considered view no offence can be said to be made out under Sections 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code, even if the entire allegation against the petitioner Prahalad Prasad, as levelled in the F.I.R., or even in the restatement of the informant, is accepted in its entirety. Accordingly, the impugned order finding that there are sufficient materials for framing charge against the petitioner Prahalad Prasad u/ss 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned order dated 20.01.2014, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner -III, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 528 of 2013, so far as it finds that the prima -facie offence is also made out against the petitioner Prahalad Prasad u/s 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby, set aside. Consequently, the order dated 26.4.2014 in S.T. No. 528 of 2013, whereby, so far the charge has been framed against the petitioner Prahalad Prasad u/ss. 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code is also set aside. There shall, however, be no interference with the other findings in the impugned orders. This application as well as I.A. No. 2639 of 2014, are accordingly, allowed in part.;