IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 298 of 2023 Ravi Kumar Tiwari, son of Umesh Tiwari, aged about 19 years, represented through his uncle Dinesh Tiwari, S/o Kamla Tiwari, resident of Sudna, P.O Daltonganj, Police Station Town, District Palamau--- --- Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Akhancha Kumari, daughter of Yashvant Kumar, resident of village Bagariya, P.O and P.S. Chatarpur, District Palamau--- --- Respondents --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Appellant: Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the Resp.-State: Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. For the Resp. No. 2: Ms. Sharda Kumari, Advocate --- 18 / 09.01.2025 Appellant has filed this criminal appeal against the order dated 24.02.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court, Palamau in S.T. No. 457 of 2022 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2020, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court, Palamau dismissed the application for discharge filed by the appellant in the aforesaid case registered under sections 376/311 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the victim aged about 19 years was residing in the house of the father of the appellant. During her stay, she developed intimacy with the appellant and thereafter, they entered into physical relationship. Earlier, the appellant had promised to marry her, but their marriage could not be solemnized. It further appears that the victim went to the parents of Ravi Tiwari with whom she was having relationship with a request to get her marriage solemnized with Ravi Tiwari, but parents of Ravi Tiwari abused her by calling her caste name. 3. Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the Respondent No. 2 is in the habit of filing frivolous cases against different persons with the intention to extort money. Attention has been drawn towards F.I.R of Chhatarpur P.S. Case No. 2 of 2017, which is annexed as Anenxure-2 to this appeal, in which she has made similar allegation against one Nandlal Prajapati stating her age to be 18 years and the entire allegation was the same as what has been alleged in the present case. Attention has further been drawn towards Annexure-3 of this appeal which is Memo of 2. complaint case no. 142 of 2017 filed by the Respondent No. 2 against Ram Janam Prajapati making similar allegation. 4. Ms. Kumari Rashmi, learned A.P.P while opposing the prayer for discharge, has admitted that the Respondent No. 2 has filed two cases against two different persons. However, she has stated that the complaint case has been filed against the father of Nand Lal Prajapati. 5. From the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that Chhatarpur P.S. Case No. 2 of 2017 was filed by the victim against Nandlal Prajapati in which has stated her age to be 18 years at the time of occurrence while the present case has been filed after considerable period of time stating her age to be 19 years at the time of occurrence. Allegation in both the cases are of similar nature. 6. It appears that these cases have been filed due to ulterior motive. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the order 24.02.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court, Palamau in S.T. No. 457 of 2022 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2020, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the court below to pass a fresh order, in the light of the observation made above. 8. With the aforesaid observation, this criminal appeal stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/ Uploaded