The appeal's outcome highlighted the necessity for a reasoned order when a trial court differs from an investigator's findings.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gaya in connection with Gaya SC/ST P.S. Case No. 42 of 2022, registered under Sections 354(A)/504 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) (w) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act whereby and whereunder cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 354 (A)/504 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s)(w) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been taken against the appellant.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that informant was said to have proceeded from Gaya to Bodh Gaya on tempo. A person was riding in the same tempo who disclosed his name Dilip Prasad Singh (appellant) and he made query to the informant regarding informant’s name and her caste. Thereafter, appellant assured the informant that he would arrange a job for her. It is alleged that appellant has made indecent behavior with the informant and when the same was protested appellant is said to have abused the informant by calling her caste name. It is further alleged that two persons namely Ashok Kumar Manjhi and Jitendra Manjhi, who were sitting in the same tempo, stopped the tempo near water tank and tried to get the appellant out of the said tempo and during the scuffle one paper was found from bag of appellant. It is alleged that tempo driver of the said tempo is said to have ran away with the appellant. On the basis of written statement, FIR bearing Gaya SC/ST P.S. Case No. 42 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 354(A)/504 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) of the SC/ST Act was registered against the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from the bare perusal of FIR, the allegation as alleged in the FIR by the informant is without any basis and the allegation as alleged by the informant does not reflect any offence as no prudent person can even think about the allegation made by the informant. He further submits that it is very absurd that a person who is said to have committed such occurrence of indecent behavior, he can disclose his name to the person against whom he is said to have committed the said occurrence. He further submits that appellant is an employee of Indian Railway, presently posted as the OC Programmer at Chitranjan, Asansol (West Bengal) and on the day of alleged occurrence, appellant was not present at the place of occurrence, as evident from attendance sheet which is annexed as Annexure A/3. He further submits that appellant never went to Gaya in his life time prior to the institution of the present case. He further submits that the reason behind the filing of the present case is that a person namely Shailesh Kumar Maurya working as the office of Superintendent in Rail Wheel Plant, Bela P.S.- Dariyapur, District – Chapra where daughter of the appellant was working as peon under Personnel department of Rail Wheel Plant, Bela, Chapra and daughter of the appellant has filed complaint against Shailesh Kumar Maurya as she has been threatened by the Shailesh Kumar Maurya for dire consequences and threatened to defame her parents. He further submits that Shailesh Kumar Maurya is said to have committed the some indecent behavior in the office and the daughter of the appellant filed complaint case also against said Shailesh Kumar Maurya . He further submits that Saran Mahila Thana P.S. Case No. 09 of 2021 (Annexure A/5) was registered against Shailesh Kumar Maurya and the case is found to be true.

4(a) He further submits that the occurrence took place on 18.09.2022 in the present case and the FIR was registered on 15.10.2022 and there is inordinate delay of about twenty seven days which has not been explained i