Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’), the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order impugned dated 24.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur in S.T. No.- 370 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code has been rejected.

2. The factual score as depicted in the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of Rekha Devi- the informant, is that after the death of her husband Mangal Lohar, she became helpless but she came in the contact of one social worker Rajbir Kaur, who narrated her story to the petitioner Manoj Kumar Sharma and the said Manoj Kumar Sharma assured her to maintain the informant and her children and also promised to marry with her on the pretext that since after the death of his wife almost five years ago, he has been living alone. Thereafter, he brought the informant to his house at Ashiyana Muktagiri Flat No. 204 and on false promise of marriage, the petitioner made illegal relationship with her. It is also alleged that she was living with the petitioner as husband and wife but the intention of the petitioner was otherwise and he tried to physically assault her daughter Simran Kaur also. Seeing the bad intention of the petitioner, she shifted her daughter Simran Kaur to her sister’s house in Jugsalai but when came back to her house, she found that petitioner with the help of 4-5 persons had taken away all the house hold articles from the said flat.

3. On the basis of the said information, Dhalbhum (Mango) P.S. Case no. 140 of 2014 was instituted on 09.03.2014 under Sections 376, 354, 379, and 506 of I.P.C.

4. It appears from the record that after completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and the case was committed to the court of sessions. At the time of framing of charge, a petition under Section 227 of the Code was filed at the instance of the petitioner for his discharge but the court below vide order dated 24.02.2015 finding sufficiency of materials and evidence against this petitioner dismissed the petition for his discharge. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order impugned as perverse and bad in law seriously contended that the court below while rejecting the petition for discharge has not at all considered the materials available on record in right perspective and in fact no case under Section 376 of I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner as the informant is major. Learned counsel further relying upon a judgment reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675; Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana submitted that the informant was capable of understanding the complications and issues surrounding her marriage to this petitioner and she voluntarily became intimate with this petitioner. It was also submitted that the informant was in habit of filing cases against persons under Section 376 I.P.C. with an intention to extort money and in those cases, the police after investigation has submitted final form and two of such final forms submitted by the police are enclosed with this revision application as Annexure-3 at page-49 and Anexxure-5 series. Learned counsel further submitted that even the daughter of the informant has lodged case with almost similar allegation against one Raj Kumar Gupta. Lastly, it was submitted that the court below without appreciating the evidence in right perspective passed the order impugned without applying his judicial mind and there is absolutely no evidence on record to show the complicity of this petitioner in the alleged offence.

6. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel suo-moto appearing for the informant and also the learned counsel representing the State opposed the prayer and contended that the court below after considering the evidence available on record passed the order impugned