Moin Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2822 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                         Cr. Revision No. 479 of 2020
                                                       .....

               Moin Ansari                                                    ....      ....Petitioner
                                                        -Versus-
               1. State of Jharkhand
               2. Sanjana Kumari                                              ....      .... Opp. Parties

              CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                                                   .......
              For the Petitioner           : - Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Adv.
              For the State                : -Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P. P.
                                                   .....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities were good.

........

06/10.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.03.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih in POCSO Case No. 102 of 2019 in connection with Bengabad P. S. Case No. 490 of 2019.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that offence under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out as basic ingredient under Section 366 A of the Indian Penal Code is that "a minor girl must be induced for another person" and on that basis it has been submitted that framing of charge under Section 366A is bad in law.

On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that it is a case of alteration of charge and the Court can alter the charge at any stage and further the Court below has looked into the matter and framed the charge under Section 366 A of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the mandate of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539, it is clear that revision is maintainable in the intermediary order and not in the interlocutory order. Intermediary order means, if it is reversed, proceeding ends. Alteration of charge cannot be a ground for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed.

However, the Trial Court is at liberty to alter the charge from Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code to Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Kamlesh/