Court Has More Responsibility To Read Things In Between Line So That Innocent Person Isn’t Put To Harassment: Jharkhand HC In Rape Case

The Jharkhand High Court remarked that the Court has more responsibility to read things in between the line so that an innocent person is not put to harassment and face trial.

The Court remarked thus in writ petitions challenging proceedings related to rape case against the accused.

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “There is no doubt if a case is made out the High Court is not required to roam into to come to a conclusion that the case is not made out. However, at the same time if malicious prosecution is made and if the High Court will not interfere it will further amount abuse of process of law for that the High Court is having more responsibility to read the things in between the line so that any innocent person may not put to harassment and face a trial.”

Advocate Prashant Pallav appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Senior Advocate Gopal Shankar Narayanan, GA Manoj Kumar, AC Deepankar Roy, and Advocate Amrendra Pradhan appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Facts of the Case -

A case was instituted alleging that the informant was assured by a woman that she would secure a job of a ‘computer operator’. However, upon coming to Ranchi, she was assigned to household work at the residence of the accused. The informant used to do the household work at the petitioner’s house which included cooking meals after she would attend college. It was alleged that the petitioner’s behaviour was never good and gradually started outraging her modesty. It was further alleged that whenever the informant would go to give tea to the petitioner, he would touch her inappropriately and have an evil eye on her. It was alleged that one night, he was in an intoxicated state and started touching her inappropriately.

The informant slapped him and rushed upstairs but he allegedly came upstairs and outraged her modesty and also demanded sexual favours. She started to scream but no one heard her plea and ultimately, he allegedly forced himself upon her. The informant told her ordeal to the other staff members. It was further alleged that in the meantime, the petitioner started to call the informant and apologize and not to disclose the incident to anyone. However, the informant left the house of the accused in the month of July 2020. It was lastly alleged that whenever the informant would rebuke the advances of the petitioner, she would be abused in the name of caste.

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The Court is in agreement with the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondent-State in the case of “Gian Singh” (supra). There is no doubt that if a serious crime is there and only on the basis of settlement it cannot be quashed which was the ratio in the case of “Gian Singh” (supra). But in the case in hand it transpires that the petitioner has not settled the dispute with the informant by way of filing any compromise petition.”

The Court added that the petitioner has helped a lady against the sitting Chief Minister of the Jharkhand State and that is why all this trap has been made and that is not denied in the counter affidavit which clearly suggests that maliciously the case has been registered against him.

“Therefore, the abuses should be either in the public place or in the place of public view. Therefore, the very complaint itself is so frivolous that no further proceedings should be permitted to be continued”, it said.

The Court further observed that the hurling of abuses is neither in a public place nor in a place of a public view and that the litigations initiated by the complainant for which she has become disgruntled has sought to misuse the provisions and abuse the process of law, only to wreck vengeance.

“It is due to the cases of this nature where the provisions of the Act are grossly misused engaging the Courts of law, at times, genuine complaints of people who have actually suffered such abuses, would go into the oblivion. In the light of the facts narrated hereinabove, the judgment of the Apex Court in Hitesh Verma, (supra) and Gorige Pentaiah(supra) would become applicable to the case at hand on all its fours”, it also said.

The Court, therefore, concluded that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner, the same will be abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the proceedings against the accused.

Cause Title- Sunil Tiwari v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Prashant Pallava, Parth Jalan, and Shivani Jaluka.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Gopal Shankar Narayanan, GA Manoj Kumar, AC Deepankar Roy, and Advocate Amrendra Pradhan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment