2026:JHHC:18887 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1343 of 2023 -------- Anil Kumar Mahto, aged about 33 years, son of Late Jhabu Mahto, resident of Sonabad, Ghatiali, P.O. & P.S.-Sonabad, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Basanti Kumari, aged about 33 years, daughter of Somra Oraon, resident of Kanke Road, Gandhi Nagar, Shaw Nagar, P.O.-Gonda, P.S.-Ranchi University, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Opp. Parties ----- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. For the O. P. No.2 : Mrs. Nisha Pandey, Advocate -------- C.A.V. on 11.06.2026 Pronounced on 29/06/2026 1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mrs. Nisha Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in S.T. Case No. 416 of 2023 (corresponding to Gonda P.S. Case No. 03 of 2022 registered under Sections 417 and 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C.) whereby and whereunder the application for discharge filed by the petitioner vide Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2699 of 2023 under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the prosecutrix is a tribal and unmarried woman. She came into contact with the petitioner 2026:JHHC:18887 2 (accused) in August, 2014, when both were working as a labour at Kanke Apartment. It is alleged that due to development of friendship and love affair, the petitioner promised the informant to solemnize marriage with her and take a vow that he could not live without her. It is alleged that in pretext of marriage, the petitioner established physical relationship with the prosecutrix, which continued till August, 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner fled away saying the informant that he will return from his native place after some days, but he got married with another woman. The informant lodged a complaint at Mahila Police Station on 17.03.2020, when the petitioner was making pretentions to solemnize marriage with her. The petitioner appeared at Mahila Thana and accepted his relationship with the informant and also agreed to solemnize marriage with her, hence, Mahila P.S. Case No.132 of 2020 was dropped due to conciliation between the parties. It is further alleged that in spite of conciliation taken place at Mahila Thana, Ranchi, the petitioner deceitfully fled away and did not solemnize marriage and also stopped talking with her. It is also alleged that during living with the petitioner, the prosecutrix became pregnant, which was terminated by administering some medicine to her by the petitioner against her will and consent. The complainant/informant filed a Complaint Case No. 9317 of 2021 and vide order dated 16.12.2021, the concerned Court directed under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. to register F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 376, 313, 323 and 419 of the I.P.C against the petitioner and to investigate the case. 4. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 417 and 376(2)(n) of 2026:JHHC:18887 3 the I.P.C. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where aforesaid criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 227 for discharge of the accused from the alleged charges, which has been rejected by the concerned Trial Court and assailed in this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although, there was friendship and cordial relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, but the allegation about indulgence in physical relationship on promise of marriage is absolutely false and fabricated story. The true fact is that being friends, the complainant was taking all pressure tactics against the petitioner to get her marriage solemnized with him which was never acceded by the petitioner rather he got his marriage with one Kajal Kumari on 27.04.2021 and being annoyed with the marriage of the petitioner, the prosecutrix has lodged this false case with all false allegation on 24.09.2021.Therefore, no offence under Sections 417 and 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner at all. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner that he was in relationship with the informant since August, 2014 to the year 2020 is not believable by any stretch of imagination as she kept silent for about 7 years and no complaint was lodged against the petitioner. The petitioner was also harassed and compelled to appear before Mahila Police Station in the year 2020 only as a pressure tactics of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that the petitioner had taken the informant to his village in the month of January, 2020 in order to obtain consent from his family members so that the petitioner and informant get married, after order passed by Mahila Thana but due to difference of caste and religion of the 2026:JHHC:18887 4 petitioner and the informant, the petitioner’s mother had not agreed for the marriage and it is only thereafter, the informant started harassing the petitioner lodging one or other frivolous complaint against him. It is further submitted that even if the allegations of physical relationship may be assumed for the sake of argument as alleged by the informant, appears to be consensual in nature and the informant being major lady, no offence of rape is constituted. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances it may be a breach of promise of marriage under extraordinary circumstances for which the petitioner cannot be blamed and the consent of the prosecutrix cannot be said to be accorded under any misconception of fact or obtained under deceitful manner from the very inception. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the reported judgments in Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608. Therefore, it is prayed that impugned order passed by concerned Trial Court is liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. assisted by Mrs. Nisha Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2 have controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the petitioner has tried to take defence plea at the stage of framing of charge, which has rightly been declined to be accepted by the learned Trial Court. It is clear cut case of false promise of marriage from the very inception, the intention of the petitioner was not to solemnize marriage with prosecutrix and to fulfill his sexual lust only. In spite of his 2026:JHHC:18887 5 undertaking before Mahila Thana that he will solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix very soon he fled away and just few months thereafter, he solemnize marriage with another lady which also fortifies his deceitful intention from the very inception. The prosecutrix is a tribal lady and petitioner is also Hindu as such there was no any legal embargo in solemnizing marriage between the parties and again the petitioner has taken false plea that his mother declined to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix. All these facts taken in defence has to be decided during trial. It is submitted that the charge has been framed and trial is being proceeded and some witnesses are also examined. Therefore, this criminal revision has become infructuous and devoid of merits which is fit to be dismissed. 8. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles in Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4 which reads as under:- “(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. 2026:JHHC:18887 6 (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” 10. From perusal of impugned order, it appears that the learned Trial Court has duly considered the materials available on record. This Court finds that the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the statement of the prosecutrix and the other materials collected during investigation prima facie disclose that the petitioner had maintained physical relationship with the prosecutrix for a considerable period on the assurance of marriage. The allegation of the prosecutrix that despite repeated assurances and even after intervention at Mahila Police Station, the petitioner ultimately solemnized marriage with another woman, prima facie establishes that the promise of marriage was false from the very inception. 2026:JHHC:18887 7 11. The plea taken by the petitioner that he was willing to marry the prosecutrix, but could not do so due to objection from his family members appears to be his defence, which can only be adjudicated upon during trial after appreciation of evidence. At the stage of consideration of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the defence version or weigh the probative value of the evidence. 12. It further appears from the record that after rejection of the discharge petition, charges have already been framed and the trial has proceeded, wherein witnesses have also been examined. In such circumstances, no jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity is found in the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court. 13. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. 14. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent back to the concerned court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 29/06/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 30/06/2026