2026:JHHC:16763 Cr. Revision No.442 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 442 of 2018 --------- 1. Arjun Yadav, aged about 35 years, S/o-Late Suryadeo Yadav 2. Upendra Yadav @ Upendree Kumar Yadav, aged about 40 years, S/o- Late Suryadeo Yadav 3. Sikandar Yadav @ Sikander Yadav, aged about 32 years, S/o-Late Suryadeo Yadav 4. Madan Yadav, aged about 36 years, S/o-Late Siva Yadav 5. Munita Devi, aged about 32 years, W/o-Madan Yadav 6. Rameshwar Yadav, aged about 55 years, S/o-Late Aditya Yadav 7. Kunti Devi aged about 50 years, W/o-Rameshwar Yadav 8. Dilip Yadav aged about 27 years, S/o-Rameshwar Yadav All are resident of village-Kharanti Tola Dumuhan, P.O.-Pandeypura, P.S.-Hunterganj, Dist. Chatra ……Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sweta Devi, W/o-Sahendra Kumar Yadav, R/o-Kharanti Tola Dumuhan, P.O.-Pandeypura, P.S.-Hunterganj, Dist. Chatra …. Opp. Parties ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS ----------- CAV On 11/05/2026 Pronounce On 10/06/2026 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Pallava, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in connection with POCSO Case No.10 of 2026 whereby and whereunder an application of the petitioners dated 20.06.2017 for discharge from the case has been rejected. Factual Matrix 2026:JHHC:16763 2 Cr. Revision No.442 of 2018 3. Factual Matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 29.01.2015 at about 8:00 am, the informant along with her 16 years minor younger sister was standing in the varandah of her house, meanwhile, Arjun Yadav came there and caught hold of her hand and knocked her on the ground and attempted to commit rape upon her. It is further alleged that the accused, Arjun Yadav also torn her blouse and other accused persons, Upendra Yadav, Sikandar Yadav, Madan Yadav, Munita Devi and Rameshwar Yadav have brutally assaulted her. The younger sister of the informant attempted to rescue her then Kunti Devi assaulted her younger sister and other accused, Dilip Yadav and Arjun Yadav knocked her sister on the ground and attempted to commit rape upon her. The accused persons also threatened to repeat such offence in future and kill them. Upon hearing hulla, several villagers assembled then the accused persons fled away. Submission on behalf of Petitioners:- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned order of rejection of discharge petition has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity. It is further submitted that prior to lodging FIR by the informant of this case, Hungerganj P.S. Case No.7 of 2015 was registered for the offences under sections 376(2)(i) and 504 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act against the informant’s husband, namely Sahendra Yadav and this case 2026:JHHC:16763 3 Cr. Revision No.442 of 2018 is a counterblast case in order to save the skin of her husband by the informant. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer did not find any materials against the petitioners constituting the offences under sections 354A, 354B, 376 and 511 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act and submitted charge-sheet only for the offences under sections 341, 323, 447, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and the petitioners were released on bail. It is further submitted that vide order dated 03.05.2016, learned court below took cognizance for the offences under sections 341, 323, 354A, 354B, 376, 511,506/34 of IPC and section 10 of POCSO Act. Learned trial court without appreciating the materials collected during investigation has swayed upon the cognizance order and rejected the discharge application of the petitioners without recording any valid reasons and discussing the materials. It is further submitted that in the course of investigation, about 4 witnesses were interrogated by the Investigating Officer, who all have supported the case of the petitioners that the husband of the informant, Sahendra Yadav has committed rape with the minor niece of the petitioners and the said FIR was lodged on 24.01.2015 much prior to lodging FIR of this case. Learned trial court has absolutely failed to shift the materials available on record collected during investigation and ignoring the materials aspects of the case appearing against the 2026:JHHC:16763 4 Cr. Revision No.442 of 2018 informant herself has passed the impugned order, which is fit to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. Submission on behalf of State:- 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that learned trial court has considered overall materials collected during investigation at a length and after recording sound reasons as to which of the offence is made out against which of the petitioners has rightly rejected the discharge application, which suffers from no error of law calling for any interference in this revision, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 6. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 7. It appears that the learned trial court has heard at length both the parties and all the points raised here by the petitioners have been dealt with by learned trial court pointing out the relevant paras of the case diary and also the reasons what offences are being constituted against the accused persons and passed the reasoned order. 8. In my considered view, the points raised on behalf of the petitioners that earlier a rape case with a minor girl by the husband of the informant was instituted by the petitioners and it is a counterblast case can only be 2026:JHHC:16763 5 Cr. Revision No.442 of 2018 decided at the time of trial taking the evidence of the parties. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference. 9. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this revision is dismissed. 10. Interim order, if any passed in this case, stands vacated. 11. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date:10/06/2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 11/06 /2026