( 2025:JHHC:33693 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1818 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1818 of 2023 ------ Atik Equbal @ Atique Equbal @ Tinku @ Md. Atique Equbal, S/o Badruddin Alam, aged about 25 years, r/o Kajimagha, PO & PS- Jamua, District-Giridih. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Lalita Kumari, d/o Mahendra Singh, r/o Matwari, PO & PS- Korra, District Hazaribagh; at present r/o Jamua, PO & PS Jamua, District Giridih. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding being the ST Case No.144 of 2024 arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No.101 of 2023 including charge sheet and the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. ( 2025:JHHC:33693 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1818 of 2023 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner who belongs to the Muslim community, represented to informant and made her believe that he is a boy of Hindu community and by so deceiving the informant had sexual intercourse with the informant repeatedly. On the basis of written report submitted by the informant, police registered Jamua P.S. Case No.101 of 2023 and took up investigation of the case, after completion of the investigation, police found the allegations made against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rashid Ansari @ Md. Rashid @ Md. Rasid vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025:JHHC:28489 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 1405 wherein in the facts of that case, where the allegation against the petitioner before this Court in that case was that the petitioner established physical relationship with the informant on the promise of marriage, but consequent upon quarrel between the informant and the petitioner, the petitioner severed his relationship with the informant, this Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sagar Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Jharkhand ( 2025:JHHC:33693 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1818 of 2023 reported in 2025:JHHC:28452 and submits that in that case also, this Court relied upon the same judgment and in the facts of that case, where the allegation against the petitioner before this Court was that the informant was in love with the petitioner for four years prior to institution of the case and the petitioner promised to marry her and requested her to have physical relationship with him and consequent upon such promise, the petitioner has been sexually exploiting the victim for four years, this Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the case has been committed to the court of Sessions, but neither charge has been framed nor any witness has been examined during the trial. It is next submitted that in this case also admittedly, the informant was having physical relationship with the petitioner for a considerable period of time and became pregnant for one and half months, hence, it is submitted that in this case also, the entire criminal proceeding be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the informant married Manoj Singh and she filed a case for maintenance against Manoj Singh. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a Muslim by religion, hence, the contention of the informant that she did not know that the petitioner belongs to Muslim religion is not believable. It is next submitted that after the petitioner knew that the opposite party no.2 is a married lady, he started maintaining distance from the opposite party no.2/informant and as such the opposite party no.2/informant implicated ( 2025:JHHC:33693 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1818 of 2023 the petitioner in this false case, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 8. 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 contention of the petitioner is that the informant is a married lady; is the defence of the petitioner based on some external evidence which cannot be considered in an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, paragraph 27.12 of which reads as under:- “27.12.xxx In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution.” 9. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State next submits that unlike the case of Rashid Ansari @ Md. Rashid @ Md. Rasid vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) and Sagar Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra), the facts of this case are different as there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioner that though, the petitioner is admittedly Muslim by religion but he impersonated as a Hindu boy and had sexual intercourse with the informant and this makes out the case of a consent given under a misconception of facts; which does not amount to consent, in view of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next ( 2025:JHHC:33693 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.1818 of 2023 submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the allegations made against him are false or that he has not cheated the informant are the defence which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case, but the same cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio of the judgments of Rashid Ansari @ Md. Rashid @ Md. Rasid vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (Supra) and Sagar Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Jharkhand (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case because unlike those cases in this case, there is direct and specific allegations made by the informant that the consent of the informant was obtained by misconception of fact, by cheating the informant by the petitioner by impersonating as a Hindu boy, though, he in fact admits in this criminal miscellaneous petition that he is a person of Muslim religion. The contention of the petitioner that the informant was aware about his religion at best is a defence, which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case, but certainly, the same cannot be considered at this stage. 11. It is a settled principle of law that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised by the High Court to conduct a mini trial as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ( 2025:JHHC:33693 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.1818 of 2023 State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 12. It is also a settled principle of law that the defence of the petitioner and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 (2) Supreme 501. 13. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner deceived and dishonestly induced the informant to have sexual intercourse with him by concealing the material fact, though, in fact, he is a person of Muslim religion by impersonating as a person of Hindu religion. 14. Under such circumstances, both the offences of cheating as well as the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code is prima facie made out, if the allegations made in the FIR and the materials in the record and other materials and other evidence which has been ( 2025:JHHC:33693 ) 7 Cr. M.P. No.1818 of 2023 collected during the investigation of the case and which allegation was found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case; are considered to be true in their entirety. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding being the ST Case No.144 of 2024 arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No.101 of 2023 including charge sheet and the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih. 16. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit is dismissed. 17. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted, if any, is vacated. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of November, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 18/11/2025