( 2025:JHHC:16434 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.3689 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3689 of 2023 ------ Rashid Ansari @ Rasid Arari, aged about 59 years, S/o Md. Ali, resident of Village-New Road Buchan Gali, Ward No.12, P.O. & P.S.- Lohardaga, Dist.-Lohardaga, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, and 2. Nahid Nilophar, D/o Samim Ansari, R/o village-Kairo, P.O.- Kairo, & P.S.-Kairo, Dist.-Lohardaga, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate ------ 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR in connection with Kairo P.S. Case No.46 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of POCSO Act against the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons committed rape upon the minor victim girl and the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the father of the one of the co-accused and on being complained by the family members of the complainant, the petitioner wanted to give them ( 2025:JHHC:16434 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.3689 of 2023 Rs.1 Lakh, but the same was not accepted by the mother of the complainant and thereafter, the petitioner threatened that if the case is instituted, then the petitioner will bhoonj (fry) the entire family members of the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet has already been submitted against the co-accused and the co-accused Tafezul Ansari faced the trial by Special POCSO Case No.17 of 2023, but as the prosecution witnesses including the victim/informant turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and the victim/informant categorically stated that she does not remember what has happened with her and she has no knowledge about what was embedded in the complaint, which, on being referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the FIR of the case has been registered and the mother, father and the sister of the victim/informant who have been examined as PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 respectively have categorically stated that nothing happened to the informant, hence, the co-accused person was acquitted. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is an ornamental one, only to harass him and there is no allegation of rape against the petitioner; moreover, the victim/informant has not supported the main case, hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer but fairly submit that the victim/informant and her parents and sister who were examined as witnesses in the said Special POCSO Case No.17 of 2023 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Lohardaga ( 2025:JHHC:16434 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.3689 of 2023 have not supported the case of the prosecution rather they have given a clean chit to the co-accused. 6. 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 there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, the allegation of rape was on the co-accused person, who has been acquitted consequent upon victim/informant and her parents and sister having not supported the case of the prosecution rather the victim/informant taking the plea of forgetfulness while her parents have categorically stated that nothing happened with the victim/informant. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety neither the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act is made out against the petitioner; in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner either of committing rape upon the victim/informant or committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the FIR in connection with Kairo P.S. Case No.46 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of POCSO Act, be quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner only. 8. Accordingly, the FIR in connection with Kairo P.S. Case No.46 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal ( 2025:JHHC:16434 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.3689 of 2023 Code and Section 6 of POCSO Act against the petitioner, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 9. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th of June, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj