(2025:JHHC:17668) 1 Cr. M.P. No.3032 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3032 of 2024 ------ Vikash Jain, aged about 34 years, son of Kamlesh Kumar Jain, Resident of Flat No.405, Shivam Housing Society, Lashkar, Gwalior, P.O. and P.S.- Gwalior, District- Gwalior, State- Madhya Pradesh … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 25.05.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No.323 of 2022 arising out of Gomia P.S. Case No.119 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1183 of 2021 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat whereby and where under the cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 417, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner deceived the informant and fraudulently and dishonestly induced the informant so deceived to consent to go from Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand to Gwalior in the State of Madhya Pradesh by falsely representing that he is an advocate by profession and is an owner of a news channel; though in fact later on it was found that the petitioner (2025:JHHC:17668) 2 Cr. M.P. No.3032 of 2024 has studied up to Class-12 and is an Insurance Agent. There is allegation against the petitioner of committing rape upon the victim and later on marrying her but subsequently causing hurt to her and intentionally insulting her by provoking her to commit breach of peace and other offences. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant, police registered Gomia P.S. Case No.119 of 2021 and took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and basing upon the same, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the said offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230 and submits that in the facts of that case; as the consensual relationship turns sour and the partners became distant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the same cannot be a ground for invoking the criminal machinery of a State and quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceedings of that case, and submits that in this case also the allegation of commission of rape upon the informant is palpably false. It is next submitted that the informant is a major lady and she was a consenting party. It is further submitted that the informant filed Original Matrimonial Title Suit No.51 of 2020 and the Additional Family Court, Ranchi allowed the petition for divorce vide judgment dated 28.02.2022. It is further submitted that the averments made in the complaint is false. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.338 of 2021 in the Family Court, Bhopal and vide judgment dated 11.04.2024, the marriage (2025:JHHC:17668) 3 Cr. M.P. No.3032 of 2024 between the petitioner and the informant was declared void. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra & Another (supra) as in the case of Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra & Another (supra), there was no allegation of cheating against the accused person of that case; unlike this case, as in this case, the petitioner first resorted to cheating and induced and deceived the informant by adopting fraudulent and dishonest means and induced the informant to travel from Bokaro to Gwalior by making false claim that he is an owner of a news channel and advocate by profession and but for playing such deception, on the part of the petitioner and the inducement done by him based on fraudulent and dishonest intention, the informant ought not have gone to Gwalior from Bokaro; which she did only after being deceived. So, the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner based on the allegations made and in respect of which, material was also collected by police, during the investigation of the case and after the materials were brought on record then only the charge-sheet for the said offences has already been filed and cognizance has been taken. 6. So far as the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing rape upon the informant in paragraph-14 of the F.I.R. The same was found to be true, by the police during the investigation of the case. It was not a case of establishing relationship on the promise of marriage but it is out (2025:JHHC:17668) 4 Cr. M.P. No.3032 of 2024 and out a case of rape. Hence, the subsequent marriage and its dissolution or being declared nullity will certainly not condone the rape committed by the petitioner upon the informant and the same was also found to be true during the investigation of the case, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code; upon submission of the charge-sheet finding the said allegation to be true. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State further submits that there are numerous occasions when the petitioner caused hurt to the informant by assaulting her and causing hurt to her; which was also found to be true during the investigation of the case, therefore, there is no illegality in respect of the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code either and similarly, there is also allegation of intentionally insulting and provoking the informant in such a manner that she can commit breach of peace. It is next submitted that since the only ground upon which the petitioner seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceeding is that the allegations made against him are false and the same can be at best, a defence of the petitioner but certainly the same cannot be a ground for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in exercise of the power under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhishek Singh vs. Ajay Kumar & (2025:JHHC:17668) 5 Cr. M.P. No.3032 of 2024 Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1313 paragraph-9 and 10 of which read as under:- “9. The scope of the Court's power to quash and set aside proceedings is well-settled to warrant any restatement. While the arguments advanced have the potential to raise many issues for consideration, we must first satisfy ourselves as to the propriety of the exercise of such power by the High Court. The task of the High Court, when called upon to adjudicate an application seeking to quash the proceedings, is to see whether, prima facie, an offence is made out or not. It is not to examine whether the charges may hold up in the Court. In doing so, the area of action is circumscribed. In Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, it was held: “8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.” 10. A reference may also be made to the recent decision of this Court in Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P., where it was held that: “18. It is well settled that when considering an application under Section 482CrPC, the court cannot conduct a mini- trial but instead is to be satisfied that prima facie the offences as alleged are made out. To put it differently, it is to be seen, without undertaking a minute examination of the record, that there is some substance in the allegations made which could meet the threshold of statutory language.” that it is a well settled principle of law that while considering an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the court cannot conduct a mini-trial but instead has to be satisfied that prima facie the offences as alleged are made out. (2025:JHHC:17668) 6 Cr. M.P. No.3032 of 2024 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra & Another (supra) as there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of cheating the informant, by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing her to go from Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand to Gwalior in the State of Madhya Pradesh, by falsely representing himself to be an owner of a news channel and an advocate though in fact, he is undisputably neither the owner of any news channel nor an advocate and for such cheating; the informant ought not have gone to Gwalior, where she was subsequently ravished by the petitioner. There is specific allegation of rape against the petitioner and the same was found to be true by the police after investigation of the case. Similarly, there is also allegation that the petitioner caused hurt to the informant on several occasions and having intentionally insulted her, which could have provoked the informant to commit offences. 10. It is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot embark upon a mini trial to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made. Because of the discussions made above, suffice is to say that if the allegations made in the F.I.R., the materials collected during the investigation of the case as mentioned in various paragraphs of the case-diary and the charge-sheet are considered to be true in their entirety, then certainly the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (2025:JHHC:17668) 7 Cr. M.P. No.3032 of 2024 12. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.10653 of 2024 stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 03rd of July, 2025 AFR/ Animesh