Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) The petitioner calls in question the legality of the order dated 13.2.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge -I -cum -Special Judge, Dumka in Special (SC/ST) Case No. 1 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'), has been rejected. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are necessary to be stated are that after the death of her father, the informant -Renu Devi applied for her service on compassionate ground in the year 1997 when this petitioner who was residing in a neighbouring house assured her to provide help in getting her service and also assured her that they will solemnize marriage and remain as husband and wife for whole life. On that assurance, the accused petitioner developed sexual relation with her but the family members opposed their relationship. Whereafter the petitioner brought her to Dumka and kept in a rented house and they continued their physical relation but whenever the informant asked to marry her, the petitioner always avoided the same on some pretext. It is also alleged that petitioner assured her that after getting service he will solemnize marriage with her but even after getting job on 9.6.2003, he did not marry her and lastly refused to live with her. The petitioner by giving false promise always extorted her salary amount. The petitioner even put her in fear and demanded Rupees One lac and if the amount is not paid, he threatened to prepare a porn videography of their sexual relationship and will send the videos to her family members and in her office. Out of fear, she paid Rupees Sixty lac (sic - -thousand?) on 25.10.2011 by withdrawing the same from Central Co -operative Bank, Dumka. Even then, the petitioner used to send threatening SMS on her mobile phone.
(2.) On the basis of said information, Dumka Town P.S. Case No. 67 of 2012 was instituted under Ss. 376/384 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sec. 3(12) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The police after due investigation submitted charge -sheet against the petitioner in the aforesaid Ss. whereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Before the Sessions Court, the petitioner filed a petition for his discharge under Sec. 227 of the Code which was dismissed by the order impugned dated 13.2.2015 holding that there are sufficient prima facie material constituting offence under Sec. 376 as well as offence under Ss. 420/406/384 of the Indian Penal Code and also prima facie material under Sec. 3(1)(12) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the purposes of framing charge against the accused are available.
(3.) Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned as perverse and bad in law, seriously contended that the informant being a major lady of 35 years old, having sufficient intelligence, cannot be said to be given her consent for sexual intercourse either under fear or under misconception of fact. It was also contended that they had solemnized marriage even though they were members of two different communities and were living in the same house which would appear from the fact that in the life insurance policy of the informant, the petitioner was shown as the nominee and in the identity card issued by Election Commission of India, she was shown to be the wife of this petitioner. It was also submitted that under given circumstances if at all any offence was made out, it was only under Sec. 417 of the Indian Penal Code and the allegation of rape under misconception and demand of money are all false and baseless in order to put the petitioner under pressure. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied on a case of Uday v/s. State of Karnataka; : (2003) 4 SCC 46. It was also submitted that no case under any provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the petitioner and even in the F.I.R. there is no ingredient to constitute offence under the said Act.;