2026:JHHC:16543 Cr. Revision No.711 of 2022 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 711 of 2022 …… Maniraj Singh @ Maniraj, aged about 36 years, son of Jayraj Singh, resident of Pirauta, Khas Ghurahu, Pirautha, Baniyapur, Post Pirauta, Police Station Baniyapur, District Saran, Bihar … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Reena Kumari, daughter of Ram Janki Vishwakarma, residing at Sector II, D Block, Bhuli, Post Bhuli, Police Station Bhuli, District Dhanbad … Opp. Parties …… For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Adv. Ms. Sugandha Khalkho, Adv. …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… ORDER C.A.V. on 11.05.2026 Pronounced on 09.06.2026 1. Instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 188 of 2021, whereby and whereunder application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge of the petitioner vide M.C.A. No.119 of 2022 dated 13.01.2022 has been rejected and the case was fixed on 30.05.2022 for framing of charge against the accused petitioner and directed him to be physically present on the next date. 2026:JHHC:16543 Cr. Revision No.711 of 2022 Page | 2 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant was already a married lady with one Chandan Vishwakarma and due to matrimonial discard in their matrimonial relationship, a divorce suit was also pending with her husband. It is alleged that taking advantage of vulnerable condition of the complainant/informant, the petitioner developed friendship with the informant and allured her to solemnize marriage with her and forcibly had sexual intercourse. The informant reported the matter before Mahila Police Station then the petitioner solemnized marriage with the informant at Maithan Temple, hence, the informant withdrew her case against the accused and the accused (petitioner) again promised to bring her to matrimonial house but thereafter, he switched off his mobile and fled away. The informant got knowledge that the accused was going to marry with another lady. The deceitful intention and behaviour of the accused is also apparent from the fact that even a case under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed after this criminal case against him which clearly indicates that there was intention to deceive the informant 2026:JHHC:16543 Cr. Revision No.711 of 2022 Page | 3 from the very inception in having sexual relationship with her. 3. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and the learned A.P.P for State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offences under Sections 376, 377 and 417 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed a complaint case before the C.J.M., Chapra vide Complaint No.3081 of 2019. He has also filed a case under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of the alleged marriage with the informant. The learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the true import and consequences of admitted facts alleged in the F.I.R. itself. The informant was a married lady and fully aware about the nature and consequences of the act for which she has charged the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that she was deceived at any point of time by the petitioner. The petitioner has been honey trapped and falsely implicated, hence, he must be discharged from the offences levelled against him setting aside the impugned order passed by the concerned Trial 2026:JHHC:16543 Cr. Revision No.711 of 2022 Page | 4 Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 assisted with learned A.P.P. for State has submitted that the petitioner has raised points of defence which cannot be considered at present stage of the proceeding. The facts disclosed in the First Information Report and charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 376 and 377 of the I.P.C. after thorough investigation in the matter as well as order of taking cognizance passed by concerned Judicial Magistrate abundantly fortifies the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. The petitioner taking advantage of vulnerable condition of the opposite party and with initial intention to deceive her has satisfied his own sexual lust without fulfilling his promise. Therefore, impugned order of rejection of discharge application does not warrant any interference in this revision. This revision is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. It appears that the learned Trial Court has considered the overall materials collected during investigation and arrived at definite finding 2026:JHHC:16543 Cr. Revision No.711 of 2022 Page | 5 that the charge against the petitioner is not groundless rather there are prima facie materials on record for framing charge against the accused for the offences under Sections 376, 377 and 417 of the I.P.C. From the points of argument on behalf of petitioner, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner is beating hot and cold at the same time adhering his defence that he has filed a complaint case against the victim of this case as well as suit for annulment of marriage before the competent court, could not be considered at the present stage of proceeding. The materials relied upon by the petitioner even if assumed to be true on its face value, it does not affect the core case of prosecution. The learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon reported judgment in Uday vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46 and Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368. 7. I have gone through the above citations and find that the ratio of aforesaid judgments do not tally with the factual background of this case and no relevancy with the issues involved in this case at the stage of framing charge. 2026:JHHC:16543 Cr. Revision No.711 of 2022 Page | 6 8. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any legal substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner and no merit in this revision which stands dismissed. 9. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 09/06/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 09/06/2026