(2025:JHHC:33650) 1 Cr. M. P. No. 4483 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 4483 of 2022 ------ Suresh Kumar aged about 37 years, s/o Baijnath Mahto, r/o village Pordag, PO & PS – Nimiaghat, District – Giridih. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Rita Kumari, d/o Mahendra Prasad Mahto, r/o village + Post Pordag, PS- Nimiyaghat, District – Giridih. … Opp. Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kr. No. 1, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Avilash Kumar, 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 Criminal Procedure Code, with the prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 04.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, in connection with Nimiaghat P.S. Case No. 94 of 2021 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih, took cognizance against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner established physical relationship with the informant for 11 years on promise of marriage but ultimately refused to marry her. On the basis of written report submitted by the informant, police registered Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No. 94 of 2021 and took up the investigation of the case and after completion of (2025:JHHC:33650) 2 Cr. M. P. No. 4483 of 2022 the investigation, police submitted chargesheet against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate in respect of the said case. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge has been framed but not even a single witness has been examined as of yet and the case is next fixed on 14.11.2025 for evidence of the prosecution. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon its own judgment in the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 in para no. 21 of which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the consensus of judicial opinion in favor of the view that the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love, on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under misconception of the fact. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner is considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition, be allowed. 6. Learned Addl. P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits (2025:JHHC:33650) 3 Cr. M. P. No. 4483 of 2022 that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of repeatedly committing rape upon the victim. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions at the bar and after going through the materials available on record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Cort of India in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 1405, paragraph nos. 9 to 11 of which reads as under :- “9. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), while dealing with a similar situation, the principles of law which must govern a situation like the present were enunciated in the following observations: "Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a "misconception of fact" that vitiates the woman's "consent". On the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it..." 10. Further, the Court has observed: "To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the "consent" of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent" was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act." 11. Bearing in mind the tests which have been enunciated in the above decision, we are of the view that even assuming that all the allegations in the FIR are correct for the purposes of considering the application for quashing under Section 482 of CrPC, no offence has been established. There is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given to the second respondent was false at the inception. On the contrary, it would appear from the contents of the FIR that there was a subsequent refusal on the part of the appellant to marry the second respondent which gave rise to the registration of the FIR. On these facts, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in declining to entertain the petition under Section 482 of CrPC on the basis that it was only the evidence at trial which would lead to a determination as to whether an offence was established.” (Emphasis supplied) (2025:JHHC:33650) 4 Cr. M. P. No. 4483 of 2022 In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principles of law that the breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise and to establish a false promise, the maker of promise should have no intention of upholding his words, at the time of giving such promise. 8. Now coming to the fact of this case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner had sexual relationship with the informant for the long period of 11 years. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has no intention to marry the informant, rather the allegation is against the parents of the petitioner that they are not agreeing for the marriage of the petitioner with the informant unless the informant pays dowry of Rs. 15,00,000/-. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner is considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, is not made out against the petitioner, therefore, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to an abuse to the process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case where the order taking cognizance dated 04.07.2022 in connection with Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No. 94 of 2021, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 04.07.2022 in connection with Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No. 94 of 2021, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 11. In result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of November, 2025 AFR/ Aditi