- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No.736 of 2020

Sanjay Rawani @ Delu

…… Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Jharkhand

2.

Bikash Rawani

…... Opp. Parties

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P

The matter was taken up through Video

Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no

objection with it and submitted that the audio and video

qualities are good.

---------

06/Dated: 06

^th October, 2021

I.A. No.1263 of 2021

1.

The present interlocutory application has been filed

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay

of 50 days in filing the present revision application.

2.

Learned A.P.P has no objection.

3.

In view of the reasons assigned in the application,

sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is made out,

accordingly the delay is condoned.

4.

I.A. No.1263 of 2021 stands allowed.

Cr. Revision No.736 of 2020

1.

The present revision application has been filed against

the order dated 25.01.2020, passed by the court of learned

A.D.J 9^th -cum- Special Judge, POCSO, Dhanbad, in POCSO

Case No.123 of 2019, whereby the petition filed under

Section 227 Cr.P.C for discharge has been dismissed.

2.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

revisionist that since the present case has been filed against

the discharge, as such, the revision is maintainable. It has

further been submitted that mere perusal of the statement of

the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C suggests that

there is no ingredients of kidnapping of the victim, and as

such, no offence is made out.

3.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed and

- 2 -

submitted that the minor girl has been taken away by the

revisionist without the consent of her legal guardian, and as

such, the offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C is made out.

4.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

considering the nature of allegation, the case of kidnapping is

made out against the revisionist. Ofcourse, the ingredients to

constitute the offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C has not

been alleged. Section 366A of the I.P.C contemplates human

trafficking and the key word has been used is “another

person”.

In the present case, there is no such allegation, and as

such, the offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C is not made

out against the revisionist, but the other offence for framing

of the charge is made out. It is not a case of discharge rather

it is a case of alteration of charge.

The court below is directed to look into the matter and

frame the charge considering the ingredients of allegation.

5.

With above observation, the criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Chandan/-