2026:JHHC:16775 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 605 of 2022 ------ Dipnarayan Kushwaha @ Deepnarayan Kushwaha, aged about 27 years, son of Sri Pokhlal Prasad Kushwaha, Resident of Village – Khutra, Post – Khutra, P.S. – Ichak, District - Hazaribagh. .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Xxx (Informant) …. .... Opp. Parties ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ravi, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate. ------ JUDGMENT CAV On Dated- 11.05.2026 Pronounced On 10.06.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 24.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 108 of 2021 arising out of Ichak P.S. Case No. 257 of 2020 registered for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C., whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of the petitioner. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that a written report of occurrence was lodged by the victim girl 2026:JHHC:16775 2 before the Officer-in-Charge, Ichak on 01.11.2020 stating inter alia that since 4 years ago, when she was studying in Project School, one Dipnarayan Kushwaha (petitioner) of Village – Khutra developed intimacy with her and both fell under love affairs. In the meantime, the accused came to the house of prosecutrix and sexual relationship also established between them. At that time, she was aged about 15 years and a minor girl. On the date of lodging the FIR, she was aged about 19 years. It is further alleged that the villager came to know about the relationship between prosecutrix and the said Dipnarayan Kushwaha, therefore a Panchyati was convened in the Village and it was decided that the accused Dipnarayan Kushwaha will solemnize marriage with the informant after attaining the age of majority. Accordingly, an agreement was also prepared. Thereafter, within one-month Dipnarayan Kushwaha inducing the informant brought her to Andhra Pradesh and kept there for six months, where petitioner was discharging duties as a driver of vehicle. In the aforesaid period, sexual intercourse continued. Again, the accused brought her to Bombay and stayed for some days and established sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, she was left to her village at Hazaribagh, where she was residing in a rented house. About six months, thereafter, she went to her home and the 2026:JHHC:16775 3 accused also went to his home. It is further alleged on 31.10.2020 at about 4:00 P.M. Dipnarayan Kushwaha came to her house and told that he has to solemnize marriage with her. In next day morning, when the family members of the informant asked about marriage, then accused started avoiding and making excuses. Hence, again Village Mukhiya was called upon and accused was asked to solemnize marriage then he declined. Thereafter, the accused was apprehended by Villagers and handed over at police station and this case was lodged. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 108 of 2021 was registered. At the time of hearing on the point of charge, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge, on which impugned order was passed, which has been assailed in this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order has submitted that the learned trial court has miserably failed to consider that in the F.I.R. itself the victim has disclosed her age to be 19 years and she resided voluntarily without any objection with the petitioner. The victim girl was sufficiently matured knowing about nature 2026:JHHC:16775 4 and consequences of her own act. She has lodged the FIR after four years of the alleged occurrence on false and fabricated story without offering any reasonable cause for such inordinate delay. The learned trial court has not only decided to frame charge under Section 376 of the I.P.C., but also found the victim girl to be 15 years of age at the relevant time of occurrence and passed an order to send the case before the Special Court under POCSO Act observing prima facie case under Section 6 of POCSO Act also. No any documentary evidence, relating to Panchayat was filed showing any agreement in between the petitioner and the informant to solemnize marriage with her. The learned trial court has committed serious illegality while passing the impugned order without proper consideration of material available on record which is liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel Spl.P.P. for the State has opposed the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered the materials collected during investigation and the contents of F.I.R. itself shows that the victim was a minor girl at the time of occurrence, she was subjected to sexual abuse and assault on false promise of marriage and inspite of attaining her majority, 2026:JHHC:16775 5 the accused denied to solemnize marriage with her. The grounds taken by the petitioner appears to his probable defence in this case, which cannot be considered at this stage of proceeding. Therefore, this revision has no merit and fit to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 8. It appears that the learned trial court has taken into consideration the overall factual aspects of this case which are undisputed in nature. The learned trial court has also considered the materials collected during investigation and the interrogation with other independent witnesses. The age of victim admittedly was 15 years at the time of relevant occurrence. It appears that the learned trial court on the basis of materials collected during investigation has passed a reasoned order and the points raised on behalf of the petitioner are concerned with his probable defence in this case, which has to be proved during trial of the case and cannot be considered at present stage of proceeding. 9. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision and no substance in the point of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. 2026:JHHC:16775 6 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 10/06/2026 Sunil/-NAFR Uploaded on 11/06/2026