Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) BY the instant revision application, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj in P.C.R. case No. 01 of 2013 whereby and whereunder, the prayer of the petitioner for his discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") was dismissed.
(2.) FOR better appreciation of the grounds advanced by the petitioner, the facts of this case may be briefly stated: "The petitioner has been made accused in connection with the aforesaid case on the basis of a written report submitted by the informant Jyoti Kumari the present opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party No. 2) before the Officer -in -charge, G.R.P. P.S., Barharwa on the allegation that on 18.08.2012 while she was travelling along with her three years child on general ticket in general bogie of Gaya -Howrah Express and when the train reached at Kahalgaon Station, because of rush in the bogie, she shifted in Sleeper Coach of the said train where one T.T.I. demanded ticket but as she was possessing a general ticket, she was asked to pay additional charge which the informant undertook to pay but the T.T.I. besides the additional charge of ticket demanded a sum of Rs. 200/ - as fine. The informant requested not to take fine as her husband is working in R.P.F. but the said T.T.I. became furious and abused her which she immediately informed her husband on mobile, who was on duty in R.P.F. Barharwa and when the train reached at Barharwa Station, the said T.T.I., who is petitioner here, again abused her and pushed her down due to which she fell down whereafter the petitioner tried to outrage her modesty. It is also alleged that at the station, her husband also came there but the petitioner threatened him also. Several people assembled there and when the T.T.I. was trying to board the train, he fell down and sustained injury. On the said information, the aforesaid case was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 504 of the I.P.C." It appears from the record that immediately after the incident, one case was lodged at the instance of this petitioner also bearing Barhara Railway P.S. Case No. 07 of 2012 against Rakesh, the husband of opposite party No. 2 Jyoti Kumari, and four unknown persons under Sections 341, 323, 353, 427, 371 and 504/34 of I.P.C. it further appears that in the case lodged by the opposite party No. 2, the police investigated and submitted final form holding the case to be false against the present petitioner but on protest filed by the opposite party No. 2, the court below took cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 324, 354(a), (b), (c), (d) and 379/120 -B and 34 of I.P.C. whereafter before framing of charge, the opposite party No. 2 examined six witnesses in support of her case. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 245 of the Code for his discharge on the ground that the present case is a counter blast of the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of this petitioner, which is prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. by the opposite party No. 2 and none of the witnesses examined by her before framing of charge have corroborated or supported her version. The court below after considering the evidence available on the record under Section 244 of the Code passed the order impugned holding " the complainant has produced six witnesses including herself u/s 244 Cr.P.C. Considering the evidence available on record there is a ground for presuming that both the accused persons (the petitioner and another accused) have committed offence punishable under Section 341, 323, 354, 504 and 379 of I.P.C. and the submission of the learned defence counsel about the counter case and the presence of contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidences are subject matter of trial which cannot be considered at this stage."
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that the case instituted at the instance of present opposite party No. 2 is a counter blast of the case lodged by this petitioner against her husband and other accused persons and the present F.I.R. was lodged on the next day of the alleged occurrence. It was also submitted that the evidences adduced by opposite party No. 2 as provided under Section 244 of the Code are full of contradictions and inconsistencies and merely relying upon such evidence, the charges cannot be framed. It was also submitted that the police after due investigation had submitted the final form against the petitioner whereafter on protest filed by the opposite party No. 2, the court below took cognizance of the offence and that the court below wrongly interpreted the judgment of Hon 'ble Apex Court in Sunil Mehta v. State of Gujarat; [ : (2013) 2 JBCJ (S.C.) 307] equivalent to [2013(2) East Cr.C. 234 (S.C.)].;