SHYAMAL BARAN DAS vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:26260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 643 of 2022
--------
Shyam Baran Das @ Shyamal Baran Das, age-64 years, son of Late B.B.
Das, resident of HEC Qrt. No.CD-401/II, Sector-II, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-
Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Lilawati Kumari, D/o Tahasildar Prasad, resident of Quarter
No.H/302, Adarsh Nagar, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-
Ranchi
… … Opp. Parties
-----
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.
--------

C.A.V. on 20.07.2026 Pronounced on 31/08/2026

1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Ranjan Kumar , learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Anuradha Sahay , learned A.P.P. for
the State.
2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated
21.04.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate XIV, Ranchi in Misc.
Criminal Application No. 682 of 2019 arising out of G.R. Case No.5255
of 2015 (arising out of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 287 of 2015),
registered under Section 354A of the I.P.C. whereby and whereunder the
application for discharge filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the
Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that informant
Lilawati Kumari, met with the petitioner, who is an advocate, in
connection with a case. An appointment was fixed at 05:15 P.M. on

2026:JHHC:26260

20.08.2015, in pursuant to which she visited his house. It is alleged that
the petitioner shut the door from inside and pulled her hand with a mala
fide intention and brought her towards the bed and attempted to disrobe
her. Thereafter, the informant fled from the house and contacted Mahila
Helpline and later on she visited Mahila P.S. on 21.08.2015 and
thereafter, on their advice, lodged F.I.R.
On the basis of above information, Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 287
of 2015 dated 01.09.2015 was registered against the accused for the
offence under Section 354A of the I.P.C.
4. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet
against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence.
5. Upon perusal of the charge-sheet and the materials available on
record, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi found a prima facie case
made out for the offence under Section 354A of the I.P.C. and
accordingly, took cognizance of the offence.
6. The petitioner has filed a miscellaneous criminal application under
Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge from the alleged charge.
The said application was rejected by the learned Trial Court, which has
been assailed in this revision.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
is a practising advocate and the victim was his client since last 10-15
years. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in legal practice
since 1981 and mainly deals with matrimonial disputes. The petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the instant case only because the
prosecutrix has refused to pay the fees due against her. She got
handsome amount as alimony from her husband and upon asking the fee,
2

2026:JHHC:26260

she refused and lodged this false case. It is also submitted that initially, a
complaint bearing No. 631 of 2015 was lodged by the victim before
Mahila Police Station against the petitioner, wherein Deputy S.P. found
the petitioner to be innocent. Thereafter, this F.I.R. was instituted after
considerable delay without offering any reasonable explanation. It is
further submitted that no case under Section 354A of the I.P.C. is prima
facie made out in this case as per the allegations of the victim and her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court has passed a
sketchy order only on the basis of cognizance taken for the offence under
Section 354A of the I.P.C. after submission of charge-sheet and without
discussing any other materials constituting the offence under Section
354A of the I.P.C. and the materials substantiating the allegations made
against the petitioner. Hence, impugned order is liable to be set aside and
this revision may be allowed.
8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the main
grounds taken by the petitioner appears to be his probable defence as
plea of innocence and dues of his remuneration, while conducting the
case of the prosecutrix, which has to be proved during trial of the case
and any probable defence relied upon by the petitioner cannot be
considered at this stage of the proceedings. Learned A.P.P. has further
submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered the materials
available against the petitioner and finding prima facie case, has rightly
passed the impugned order, which suffers from no illegality or infirmity.
Therefore, this revision has no merits and fit to be dismissed.
9. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.
3

2026:JHHC:26260

10. From perusal of impugned order, it appears that no written
objection was filed on behalf of victim in spite of opportunity given to
her. The learned Judicial Magistrate has simply stated that cognizance
has already been taken for the offence under Section 354A I.P.C. and
nothing else incriminating materials has been discussed for arriving at
subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate that a prima facie case
for proceeding under Section 354A of the I.P.C. against the petitioner is
available on record. Therefore, the impugned order appears to be non-
speaking order and devoid of reasons.
11. In view of above discussion and reasons, the impugned order
dated 21.04.2022 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
concerned court for providing opportunity to both parties for hearing on
the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and pass a fresh well-reasoned
order without being prejudiced by any observations of this Court as
mentioned above.
12. Accordingly, this revision is allowed .
13. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for
information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 31/08/2026
Arpit/ N. A. F. R.
Uploaded on 01/09/2026


4