- (1.) : D.K. Sinha, J. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 5.4.2007 in G.R. No. 621/05 corresponding to T.R. No. 768 arising out of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 221 of 2005 passed by the S.D.J.M., Madhupur at Deoghar whereby and whereunder cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. against the petitioner Ravi Shankar Kumar @ Tinku @ Ravi Shankar Prasad and further for quashment of the entire criminal prosecution against him.
(2.) THE prosecution story lies in a narrow compass. The complainant Monika Marandi presented a complaint case vide P.C.R. Case No. 357 of 2005 before the S.D.J.M. Madhupur at Deoghar alleging inter alia that she was living with her elder sister and was continuing her studies there. On the information received that her brother -in -law Umesh Kumar was returning to Madhupur Station, she went to Madhupur Station with her elder sister with her child but he did not come. She alongwith her elder sister and child came to Madhupur Bus Stand to board a Giridih bound bus. In the meantime, a Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. JH 11 B 8399 came and stopped near them. The accused Ravi Shankar Kumar @ Tinku @ Ravi Shankar Prasad i.e. the petitioner herein, who was known to the sister of the complainant enquired and when he came to know that both had to return back to Giridih, he offered that he would take them away to their home on the Sumo. It was narrated further that when the Sumo vehicle proceeded carrying them from Madhupur Chowk, the husband of the sister of the informant alter identifying his wife and the sister -in -law alarmed to stop the vehicle but it did not. It was alleged that after covering some distance, the petitioner closed the glasses of the windows of the vehicle and alighted from the vehicle and started enjoying liquor with his three associates. They also insisted the complainant to consume the liquor but she refused, whereupon, in spite of her resistance the petitioner could be able to administer liquor forcibly in her mouth with the aid of his three friends. Such act of the petitioner was opposed by the elder sister, whereupon the petitioner snatched the child from her lap and threatened that in case of any protest, her child would be thrown out from the running vehicle. After covering some distance the other persons alighted from the Sumo vehicle taking her sister and her child and it was alleged that the petitioner committed rape on the complainant in the vehicle itself. During commission of the offence she became unconscious. The petitioner and other culprits dropped the complainant and her sister with the child by extending threat that her entire family would be eliminated lest she would convey the matter to anyone. They anyhow came to their house where they narrated the occurrence to the brother -in -law. She was taken to Hospital at Giridih but was advised to first inform the police. The Giridih police refused to institute any case on the pretext of jurisdiction 9f the alleged occurrence. She then came to Madhupur Police Station but even there no case was registered. Ultimately she came to Deoghar where she instituted complaint case. The S.D.J.M. referred the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 221 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Section 376 (2)(g)/341 I.P .C. as also under Section 3(x) S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioner but after investigation the police submitted final form exonerating the criminal liability of the petitioner. The S.D.J.M., Madhupur at Deoghar after receipt of the final form issued notice to the informant - complainant but she could not appear. Yet, the learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. upon being satisfied with the prima facie materials against the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner had earlier invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court vide W.P.(Cr.) No. 162 of 2006 for the quashment of the entire investigation and criminal proceeding of the police case. Similarly, the informant -complainant Monika Marandi had also preferred a Criminal Writ No. 93 of 2006 for appropriate Writ commanding upon the Investigating Officer for arresting the petitioner but both the writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn.;