Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21041 (JHR)

Raushan Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2026-01-07

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2 yet, no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Lesliganj P.S. Case No.39 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.09 of 2023 including the order taking cognizance dated 23.11.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner basing upon the charge sheet submitted by the police. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge has not yet been framed in this case and the case is fixed on 04.02.2026 for consideration of framing of charge. 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is though was a married person, still he was in love with the informant for about one year before lodging of the FIR and in the meanwhile, the informant became pregnant and after pregnancy continued for six months, the petitioner took the informant to keep her with him at Ranchi and kept the informant at Ranchi Railway Station for some days and when the informant become suspicious that she has been duped, she fled away from there. 6. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Lesliganj P.S. Case No.39 of 2023 and took up investigation of the case and consequent upon submission of charge sheet, cognizance has been taken. 7. 6. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Lesliganj P.S. Case No.39 of 2023 and took up investigation of the case and consequent upon submission of charge sheet, cognizance has been taken. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalu Yadav vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in 2024 INSC 782 , wherein para-13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgement in the case of Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89 wherein in the facts of that case of alleged rape on false promise of marriage, made five years after the complainant and the accused started having relations and even the complainant got pregnant from the accused, while the lady was having a subsisting marriage, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the prosecutrix had given her consent for sexual relationship and quashed the entire criminal proceeding. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijayan vs. State of Kerala reported in (2008) 14 SCC 763 , wherein in the facts of that case where the incident took place seven months prior to the date of lodging the complaint and the explanation for delay in lodging the FIR is that the accused promised to marry the informant and it was a case based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix; in the absence of any medical report nor any DNA test was conducted, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside the judgment of conviction. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Harishankar Das vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2024: JHHC :38567 and submits that therein this Court relied upon its own judgment in the case of Deepak Kumar Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Harishankar Das vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2024: JHHC :38567 and submits that therein this Court relied upon its own judgment in the case of Deepak Kumar Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 2967 , wherein in paragraph no.8 of that case relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 and Anurag Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2019) 13 SCC 1 , this Court has reiterated the settled principle of law as under:- “8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in case of consensual sexual relationship, the determining factor is whether the male partner made a false promise and that the male partner engaged in sexual relations on the basis of such false promise. If the same is yes, then only the same will amount rape punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. It is next submitted that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shiv Pratap Singh Rana vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2024) 8 SCC 313 wherein in the facts of that case, from the factual matrix of the case, it was culled out that the relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix was a consensual relationship and the parties were in a relationship for almost two years and though there was talk between the parties and their family members regarding their marriage the same did not happen leading to lodging of the FIR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in that case quashed the FIR. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Xxxx vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr . 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Xxxx vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr . reported in (2024) 3 SCC 496 wherein in the fact of that case when a married lady had physical relationship with the accused of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considering the fact that prosecutrix being the mature lady being intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to, in the facts of that case, quashed the FIR. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is crystal clear from the FIR itself that on the date of lodging the FIR, the informant was of 20 years of age and thus a quite mature lady and there is no allegation against the petitioner of establishing sexual relationship with her against her will or without her consent and in the absence of the same even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 13. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. 14. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, the undisputed facts remains that the informant and the petitioner were in love with each other for about one year and the informant was knowing pretty well that the petitioner was a married man. There is no allegation that the physical relationship was made on the promise of marriage. There is no allegation that the petitioner ever made any false promise of marriage. It is the admitted case of the complainant/informant that the petitioner was ready and willing to keep her when she became pregnant and even took her to Ranchi and kept her in the Railway Station for considerable period of time and apprehending of being duped, the informant fled away from there. 15. It is the admitted case of the complainant/informant that the petitioner was ready and willing to keep her when she became pregnant and even took her to Ranchi and kept her in the Railway Station for considerable period of time and apprehending of being duped, the informant fled away from there. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Lesliganj P.S. Case No.39 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.09 of 2023 including the order taking cognizance dated 23.11.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau, be quashed and set aside. 16. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Lesliganj P.S. Case No.39 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.09 of 2023 including the order taking cognizance dated 23.11.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 17. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.