1 W.P. (Cr.) No.702 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No.702 of 2023 ------ Prem Munda @ Prem Kumar Munda, aged about 23 years, Son of Raj Lal Munda, Resident of Devaria, Bhadaninagar, P.O.- Bhurkunda Bazar, P.S.- Patratu, District- Ramgarh. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Neha Ranjan D/o Rajiv Ranjan, R/o at- Deoriya, Bhurkunda, P.O.+P.S.- Patratu, Dist.- Ramgarh … Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achyut Keshav, AAG-V Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to AAG-V For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to pass an appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/direction(s) for quashing the First Information Report including all subsequent proceedings arising out of Patratu (Bhadaninagar) P.S. Case No.179 of 2022 involving the offences punishable under Sections 376/417/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66-F/67 of the Information Technology Act. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 04.08.2022, the petitioner forcibly committed rape upon the informant-prosecutrix and prepared a video of the commission of rape and after creating an ID in Social Media, the petitioner made the photos viral and threatened to deface the informant-prosecutrix by 2 W.P. (Cr.) No.702 of 2023 attacking her with acid and also blackmailed the informant. The friend of the petitioner namely Bittu Kumar helped the petitioner in preparing the video and taking the pictures. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. There was a friendship between the petitioner and the informant-prosecutrix prior to the occurrence and they used to chat with each other for a considerable period of time. It is next submitted that the admitted case of the informant-prosecutrix is that she went to a hotel with the petitioner which shows that the alleged relationship which took place was a consensual one. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that no offence punishable in law is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Writ Petition (Cr.) be allowed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant-prosecutrix on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that there is direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner of having forcibly committed the offence of rape upon the informant-prosecutrix on 04.08.2022. It is next submitted that the mere fact that the informant-prosecutrix accompanied the petitioner to a hotel does not confer any right upon the petitioner to commit rape upon the informant-prosecutrix. It is next submitted that in fact the relevant offence under the Information Technology Act is Section 66-E but because of clerical error, the offence has been mentioned as under Section 66-F of the Information Technology Act. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, be dismissed. 3 W.P. (Cr.) No.702 of 2023 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of forcibly committing rape upon the informant-prosecutrix on 04.08.2022. As has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, merely because of the fact that the informant-prosecutrix accompanied the petitioner to a hotel, will not condone the commission of rape upon the informant-prosecutrix by the petitioner. As has fairly been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the relevant penal section under the Information Technology Act is Section 66-E which has inadvertently been written as Section 66-F of the said Act and such inadvertent mistake in mentioning a penal provision in the formal FIR, certainly, is not a ground itself to quash the First Information Report including all subsequent proceedings arising out of Patratu (Bhadaninagar) P.S. Case No.179 of 2022; when without any doubt if the allegations made in the FIR are considered to be true, the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the First Information Report including all subsequent proceedings arising out of Patratu (Bhadaninagar) P.S. Case No.179 of 2022 against the petitioner be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, is dismissed. 9. In view of disposal of this Writ Petition (Cr.), the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 25.04.2024 is vacated. 4 W.P. (Cr.) No.702 of 2023 10. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd of January, 2025 AFR/ Saroj