2026:JHHC:21569 Cr. Revision No.1188 of 2019 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1188 of 2019 …… Anant Kumar, aged about 37 years son of Sri Anil Singh Azad, resident of Devi Dayal Lane Bara Bazar, P.O., P.S. Sadar (Hazaribagh), District Hazaribagh. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sanjeeta Kachap, daughter of Kripal Kachap, resident of Village Hurhuru, P.O. Patratu, P.S. Sadar, District Ramgarh. … Opp. Parties …… For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… ORDER C.A.V. on 29.06.2026 Pronounced on 20.07.2026 1. Instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 20.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribag in S.T. No. 289 of 2017, whereby and whereunder an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging the petitioner from offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code has been rejected. 2. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P appearing for State. 2026:JHHC:21569 Cr. Revision No.1188 of 2019 Page | 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned orders have submitted that although petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. after investigation but from the averments contained in the F.I.R., statement of the victim and the witnesses interrogated under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. along with other documentary evidence collected during investigation, no offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is constituted against the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. itself, the victim has alleged that some rituals of marriage like sindoordan, wearing mangalsutra has taken place. Therefore, no question of commission of rape with the victim arise. It is further submitted that at the time of granting bail to the petitioner, a condition was imposed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as victim compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. has also been deposited by the petitioner before the concerned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the age of the victim is more than 18 years and there was consensual sexual relationship with the petitioner. Admittedly, the first occurrence of physical relationship took place in the year 2008 and since then till 2012, the prosecutrix 2026:JHHC:21569 Cr. Revision No.1188 of 2019 Page | 3 has remained with the petitioner of her own accord at different places. Therefore, it cannot be said that her consent was vitiated for any reason whatsoever. It is further submitted that the main reason for false implication of the petitioner is that due to friendship, the prosecutrix demanded friendly loan of Rs.30,000/- which the petitioner failed. It is also admitted by the prosecutrix that the petitioner was willing to marry her but due to interference of his family members, the marriage could not be solemnized. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was intention of the petitioner from the very inception to cheat the prosecutrix. Therefore, impugned orders are liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there is specific case of the prosecutrix that under allurement of solemnizing marriage with her, the petitioner developed intimacy with her and also established sexual relationship and in pretext of performing marriage, some rituals also undergone but without any formal marriage. The petitioner has not only 2026:JHHC:21569 Cr. Revision No.1188 of 2019 Page | 4 taken the prosecutrix at his work place but also kept for some time and also at his home. Therefore, the manipulated plea that his family members have declined to solemnize the marriage with the prosecutrix, is absolutely a false and fabricated plea. The prosecutrix has taken several steps by lodging complaint before the higher police authorities. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken to Assam at the work place of the petitioner where she was also sexually exploited under promise of marriage but later on making one excuse or another not only lingered the marriage but also flatly denied which clearly indicates his intention from the very inception to satisfy his sexual lust only without performing marriage with the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that at this stage, the defence plea cannot be considered. The learned Trial Court relying upon several judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court and considering the factual backgrounds of the case in the light of materials collected during investigation, has passed a very reasoned order constituting the offences under Sections 376 and 493 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner which requires no interference in this revision which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 2026:JHHC:21569 Cr. Revision No.1188 of 2019 Page | 5 5. I have gone through the impugned orders in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 6. It appears that there are specific allegations against the present petitioner that since 13.04.2008, he developed intimacy with the prosecutrix and in false pretext of marriage, established sexual relationship with her. When she pressurized for marriage then he again played a drama by putting vermillion on her head and providing a mangalsutra and continued to satisfy his lust. The petitioner got employment in the year 2010 then he started keeping distance from the prosecutrix due to constant pressure for marriage by the prosecutrix. She was brought by the present petitioner on 27.03.2012 at his work place at Assam where also sexually exploited her with a promise to solemnize marriage. Thereafter, left to Hazaribag at her parental home. 7. From perusal of the impugned orders, it transpires that the learned Trial Court has appraised itself with the materials collected during investigation and found prima facie sufficient positive evidence available on record on the basis of materials collected during investigation, proceed for offences under Sections 376 and 493 of the I.P.C. The contested 2026:JHHC:21569 Cr. Revision No.1188 of 2019 Page | 6 question of facts representing probable defence of the petitioner cannot be considered at the present stage of the proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any valid reason to take a different view from the learned Trial Court to interfere with the impugned orders. 8. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, I do not find any merits in this revision and no substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this revision is 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: 20/07/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 22/07/2026