Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:7273 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 14 of 2026 Ashish Shukla, S/o Rabindra Shukla, R/o Vill- Palhe Khurd, P.O.- Nawdiha, P.S.- Patan, Palamau. --- --- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh, having its office at S.P. Office, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh. 3. The Officer-in-Charge, Mahila Police Station, having its office at Mahila Police Station, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh. 4. Victim/Informant/Prosecutrix --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kr. Tiwari, Adv. For the State : None. For the resp. no. 4/informant : Mr. Awadhesh Pandey, Adv. --- 03/17.03.2026 Heard Mr. Ranjit Kr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the State, though Mr. Awadesh Pandey, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 4. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Ramgarh (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 19/2025. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that only with respect to an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, the petitioner has been implicated. Learned counsel submits that there has been a delay of 5 months in institution of the FIR. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 has opposed the prayer made in this writ application. The allegation reveals that the petitioner was working with the husband of the informant and had friendly terms with him. On 27.02.2025, the petitioner had demanded Rs. 2 lakhs from the informant for purchase of land which was Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:7273 p. 2 extended to the petitioner by the informant, but the amount was never returned and the petitioner stopped talking with the informant. It has been alleged that subsequently on 09.04.2025, petitioner finding the informant alone had committed rape upon her. Though it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been a delay of five months in institution of the FIR, but considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and the fact that it would be premature at this stage to interfere with the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner, the present writ application stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Dated- 17th March, 2026. Preet/- Uploaded on: 18 /03//2026.