2026:JHHC:17059 Cr. Revision No.530 of 2022 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 530 of 2022 …… Hitesh Kumar Lohra, aged about 31 years, son of Kali Charan Lohra, Resident of village Bharbhariya, P.O. and Police Station- Manjhari District-Chaibasa … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Oaila Lohar D/o Late Bhashan Lohar R/o – Vill. – New Olidih P.O. + P.S. – Mango Distt.- East Singhbhum, State – Jharkhand. … Opp. Parties …… For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, A.P.P. …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… ORDER C.A.V. on 14.05.2026 Pronounced on 12.06.2026 1. Instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (F.T.C.) CAW, East Singhbhum in S.T. No.60 of 2022, whereby and whereunder an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. dated 21.03.2022 filed by the petitioner for discharging him from the offence punishable under Section 376/418 of the I.P.C. has been rejected. 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the prosecutrix has alleged love affair with the present petitioner 2026:JHHC:17059 Cr. Revision No.530 of 2022 Page | 2 for nine years, i.e., 28.01.2011 to 12.02.2020. It is alleged that during the said period, the accused established physical relation with her on assurance of solemnization of marriage with her. Whenever, the victim requested for marriage to the petitioner, he was taking one or another excuses and ultimately denied to solemnize marriage with her. It is alleged that when the prosecutrix came to know that accused is going to solemnize marriage with another girl and till now, she was under belief on his promise to solemnize marriage with her, she lodged the F.I.R. 3. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P for State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the informant as well as the petitioner are grown up person and major. Admittedly, there was love affair between them which continued for a long period of nine years including consensual sexual relationship but from her statement, it does not appear that from the very inception, the intention of the petitioner was to deceive the informant so that her consent was vitiated due to misconception. The learned Trial Court has miserably failed to consider that such a long consensual 2026:JHHC:17059 Cr. Revision No.530 of 2022 Page | 3 intercourse without insistence, on performance of marriage would attract the offence under Section 376 I.P.C./ Section 64 of the B.N.S. It has also been revealed by the informant that there was apprehension in her mind as well as the petitioner that the parents of the petitioner may not agree for such marriage and it is also a fact that the parents of the petitioner were not in favour of this marriage. Therefore, petitioner was compelled to solemnize marriage with another lady. Therefore, impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is absolutely illegal and based upon, beyond the materials admitted by the prosecution, which if admitted to be true on its face value even then no offences under Sections 376 and 418 of the I.P.C. is constituted against the petitioner. Hence, impugned order may be set aside and this revision may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that every pros and cons cannot be taken at the time of hearing of the discharge petition rather the Court is confined to the materials collected during investigation. There is clear cut statement of the 2026:JHHC:17059 Cr. Revision No.530 of 2022 Page | 4 victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that from the very inception, the sexual intercourse was entered into on promise of marriage. The petitioner has taken undue lust from her for a long period in spite of her resistance and making request for solemnization of marriage. The petitioner in one or other excuses, was postponing the same from the very inception. The petitioner was not having any intention to solemnize marriage with the victim girl except satisfying his own lust. It is further submitted that whether there was free consent of the victim in allowing the petitioner for having sex with her for such a long period or she was defrauded on promise of the petitioner to solemnize marriage with her with intention to never fulfill the same, is the question to be decided during trial and at this stage, Court cannot enter into mini trial in deciding the disputed questions of fact and law. The learned Trial Court placing reliance upon several judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court set as guidelines for consideration while dealing with the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has rightly rejected the same. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference in this revision 2026:JHHC:17059 Cr. Revision No.530 of 2022 Page | 5 which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties advanced by their respective learned counsels. 7. It is well settled law that at the stage of framing of the charge, what is required to be seen is as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused on the basis of materials collected during investigation. At this stage, accused has no right to produce any material or take any probable defence favouring him unless the same is contested during trial and proved. It is also trite that at this stage, the Court should not make roving enquiry into the allegations and counter allegations and decide the truth or falsity of the allegations which are subject matter of the trial. 8. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. N. Suresh Rajan and Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 709, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while dealing with the application under Section 227/228 of the Cr.P.C., no mini trial is contemplated at the stage of considering discharge application and the Court has to proceed with assumption that materials brought on record by prosecution are true. Only probative value of materials has to be gone into to see if there is a prima facie case for 2026:JHHC:17059 Cr. Revision No.530 of 2022 Page | 6 proceeding against the accused. Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that materials would not warrant a conviction. If Court, on the basis of materials, thinks that accused prima facie might have committed offence, it can frame the charge. 9. In the instant case, although there is an allegation of love affair relationship since long between the informant and the petitioner but from the materials collected during investigation as well as the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. clearly goes to show that she, on several occasions, resisted the act of the petitioner in indulging in sexual activities unless he solemnize marriage with the victim. He also assured that he will talk with his parents very soon and continued the sexual relationship with the prosecutrix. The overall factual spectrum prima facie leads to strong inference that the petitioner had no intention from the very inception to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix rather he has deceived her while taking undue advantage and satisfying his own lust keeping in dark to the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was very much shocked when the petitioner was going to solemnize marriage with another 2026:JHHC:17059 Cr. Revision No.530 of 2022 Page | 7 lady and even she attempted to commit suicide and was admitted in hospital for 3-4 days, thereafter, lodged this case. Still the question whether it was consensual relationship or it was deceitful and vitiated by misconception, has to be decided after adducing evidence by the prosecution and rebuttal by the defence. 10. In my considered view, the learned Trial Court has committed no error of law in rejecting the discharge application of the petitioner and has passed a well reasoned order which requires no interference in this revision, which stands dismissed. 11. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 12. 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: 12/06/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 12/06/2026