- (1.) This revision is against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC No. IV, Dhanbad, revising the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, in C. P. Case No. 1000/04, dismissing the complaint of the complainant, who is the Opp. Party No. 2 in this revision.
(2.) A complaint was filed by the complainant (Opp. Party No. 2) against the petitioner, Mahendra Sahu, with an allegation that at about 1.30 P. M. on 23-1-04, the petitioner, after requesting the complainant to make a cup of tea, caught her and pushed her onto the bed and forcefully raped her. According to the complainant - Opp. Party No. 2 she narrated the incident and thereafter filed a complaint at the police station. She has further alleged that since the police did not take any action, she had to come by way of a private complaint to seek justice. The complaint was taken on file, complainant was examined and it was fixed for enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. During the course of enquiry, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant - Opp. Party No. 2 and thereafter, the learned Magistrate went on to pass an order dismissing the complaint. The complainant- Opp. Party No. 2, aggrieved by the said order of dismissal under Section 203 Cr. P. C., filed a revision before the Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge reversed the order of dismissal and restored the complaint on file and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the case according to law. The present revision by the accused in the complaint is against the said order of the learned Sessions Judge.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contends that the learned Sessions Judge erred in reversing the order of the Judicial Magistrate dismissing the complaint, since, according to the counsel, the learned Magistrate found during enquiry that no offence had been made out and the evidence of the witnesses produced by the complainant was found to be unbelievable.;