2026:JHHC:16558 Cr. Revision No.1100 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1100 of 2022 --------- Ram Nath Sahu, S/o-Bhuneshwar Sahu, aged about 38 years, resident of Cooperative Colony Jhopri, Opposite Ansari Cycle Store, P.O. & P.S.-B.S. City, Bokaro, Dist.-Bokaro, State-Jharkhand ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anju Kumari, D/o-Rajendra Sahu, Resident of-Gumla Colony, near D.C. Office, Sector-IV, P.O. and P.S.-Sector IV, Bokaro, District-Bokaro …. Opp. Parties ---------- For the Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Raj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS ----------- CAV On 11/05/2026 Pronounce On 09/06 /2026 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 23.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in connection with S.T. No.341 of 2019 arising out of complaint Case No.751 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner for discharge from the case has been rejected. Factual Matrix 3. Factual Matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant is a student of M.A. and her father is working as a gardener. It is further alleged that on 02.05.2015, the complainant along with her parents, elder sister and elder brother-in-law went to attend a reception of her 2026:JHHC:16558 Cr. Revision No.1100 of 2022 2 cousin brother, Bhusan Sahu at Cooperative Colony, Bokaro. It is further alleged that at about 12:00 hours, the complainant went for toilet, in the meantime, the present petitioner, who is neighbour of her uncle followed her and forcibly took her inside the toilet and committed rape upon her. When the complainant started crying the accused person threatened her of life and also assured that if she maintains silence, he will solemnize marriage with her. Due to fear, the complainant did not disclose the above incident at once to any person. Thereafter, the accused, Ramnath Sahu, who is working in the Railway Protection Force, Adra, used to come to Bokaro on every Saturday and Sunday and made physical relationship with the complainant on assurance of marriage. The complainant noticed that the accused is not serious about the marriage and taking unwanted lust from her. The complainant called the petitioner on 20.11.2016 and urged him to make it clear whether he will marry with her but he flatly refused. It is further alleged that the complainant has prepared Audio CD of conversation between herself and the accused, Ramnath Sahu, which will be produced before the court. It is further alleged that the complainant disclosed the above incident to her family members and in the next day morning, she along with her elder sister went to Sector IV, Police Station and made an oral complaint but she was advised to go to Mahila Police Station then she went to Mahila Police Station on 22.11.2016, where the parents of the 2026:JHHC:16558 Cr. Revision No.1100 of 2022 3 accused, Ramnath Sahu were also called upon and convinced to solemnize marriage of their son with the complainant. Thereafter, Ramnath Sahu (petitioner) called the family members of the complainant at his residence on 26.11.2016 to discuss about the marriage with her. It is further alleged that on the said date, the complainant along with her parents, sister and brother-in-law went to the house of Ramnath Sahu where she was abused and humiliated by demanding Rs.5 lakhs for marriage. The complainant was ousted along with her family members by the accused persons under threatening of dire consequences. Thereafter, the complainant met with in-charge of RPF of Adra on 30.11.2016 and complained about the conduct of the petitioner and she also complained before the higher police officials, but no action was taken then she lodged this complaint case. 4. As per order of concerned Magistrate, the complaint was sent under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to B.S. City Police Station for registration of FIR and investigation. Accordingly, B.S. City P.S. Case No.73 of 2017 dated 13.04.2017 was registered for the offence under sections 376, 385, 386, 506 and 120B of IPC. After investigation, the police submitted final report stating the case to be untrue. Thereafter, learned trial court on protest petition, conducted the inquiry into the allegation mentioned in the complaint petition and found prima facie case for issuing 2026:JHHC:16558 Cr. Revision No.1100 of 2022 4 summons against the accused persons. After appearance of accused persons, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. 5. The petitioner filed an application for discharge, which has been rejected by the concerned trial court and assailed in this revision. Submission on behalf of Petitioner:- 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the parents of the complainant, no independent witnesses have been examined during inquiry and before charge evidence and medical report of the victim was also not produced in proof of allegation of rape. The complaint case was thoroughly investigated by the police, but the case was found false. Therefore, final form was submitted. The complainant herself is a member of gang, which is active in Bokaro and engaged in criminal offence of blackmailing and extorting money by using woman/girl to implicate the innocent persons in false case of rape. The brother-in-law and sister of the complainant are the mastermind of whole blackmailing activity and several cases are pending against them in Bokaro and in other courts including Harla P.S. Case No.41 of 2017 against Nawal Kishore Sharma (brother-in-law of the complainant and Ors.) for the offences under sections 420 and 386 of IPC. The petitioner has also filed a complaint case vide C.P. Case No.320 of 2017 which was sent to B.S. City police station for registration and investigation of the case exercising the power under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, 2026:JHHC:16558 Cr. Revision No.1100 of 2022 5 Sector IV P.S. Case No.107 of 2017 was registered against the complainant and her family members for the offences under sections 307, 323, 324, 384, 120B/34 of IPC. The complainant has also filed B.S. City Case No.73 of 2017 against Chamru Sahu and others, Sector IV P.S. Case No.107 of 2017 i.e. against Aftab Alam and Ors. and Sector IV P.S. Case No.148 of 2017 for the offences under sections 354, 386, 376/34 of IPC against several other persons. Therefore, the complainant has been engaged in such profession for extorting the money from the innocent people by lodging false cases of rape. The petitioner also duet to threat of complainant against roping in a false case, has already paid Rs.1 lakh to the brother-in-law of the complainant, but they were demanding Rs.4 lakhs from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has complained before Deputy S.P., Bokaro on 09.05.2017. The petitioner has been made escape goat of blackmailing on false and fabricated allegation of rape. Learned trial court has failed to take into consideration the aforesaid material facts even appearing during investigation of the case, wherein the case was found untrue and final form was submitted. As such impugned order passed by learned trial court is absolutely illegal and based beyond the materials available on record and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this revision may be allowed. Submission on behalf of State:- 2026:JHHC:16558 Cr. Revision No.1100 of 2022 6 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are self-serving and probable defence to be taken during trial of the case, which cannot be considered at present stage of proceeding and rightly ignored and declined to be considered by the learned trial court. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 8. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 9. It appears that after weighting the materials, learned trial court recorded findings that earlier Cr.M.P. No.3320 of 2018 was filed by the present petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the order of cognizance suppressing the factum of the pendency of the discharge application before the concerned trial court. Therefore, the aforesaid Cr.M.P. was dismissed. The learned trial court has also considered the sworn affirmation of complainant and the evidence of the inquiry witnesses as well as compact disk regarding conversation between the complainant with the petitioner showing direct and specific allegations against the petitioner and other accused persons. Learned trial court after considering the materials has arrived at definite findings that there are prima facie sufficient materials against the present petitioner for 2026:JHHC:16558 Cr. Revision No.1100 of 2022 7 framing charge under sections 376(2) n, 385, 386, 420, 504/120B of IPC and against rest of the accused persons, namely Bhuneshwar Shau and Sumitra Devi, there is prima facie materials for framing charge under sections 385, 386, 420, 504/120B of IPC. It appears that the sole petitioner has challenged the impugned order by way of this revision. 10. I have given thoughtful consideration to the impugned order and reasons recorded by the learned trial court on the basis of materials available on record and find no illegality or infirmity calling for any interference in this revision. The petitioner shall be at liberty to take aforesaid defence plea at proper stage of proceedings during trial of the case. 11. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this revision is dismissed. 12. Interim order, if any passed in this case, stands vacated. 13. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent back to the trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date: 09/06 /2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 10/06 /2026