Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21205 (JHR)

Arpan Barla v. State of Jharkhand

2026-02-05

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Complaint Case No. 55 of 2023 whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n)/420 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the case as the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti vide order dated 10.12.2024 in S.T. Case No. 36 of 2024 hence, the additional prayer was also made by way of amendment of this criminal miscellaneous petition, to quash and set aside the order dated 10.12.2024 passed in the said S.T. Case No. 36 of 2024. 3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that as yet charge has not been framed in S.T. Case No. 36 of 2024 and the trial is yet to begin. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that consequent upon love developing between him and the prosecutrix, the petitioner invited the prosecutrix to his house. There was conversation between them and when the prosecutrix was about to leave the house of the petitioner, the petitioner forcibly told her to stay back and thereafter forcibly committed rape upon her, at which the prosecutrix raised uproar. Thereafter, the petitioner pressed the mouth of the prosecutrix and in the process the prosecutrix sustained some injury. As the prosecutrix started crying the petitioner promised to marry her. After commission of rape the prosecutrix left the house of the petitioner. Subsequently, when the prosecutrix was staying at Ranchi in Lalpur there also the petitioner came and established physical relationship with the prosecutrix and told the prosecutrix that he has captured the video of their first sexual encounter and started blackmailing the prosecutrix and by such blackmailing, the petitioner took Rs.50,000/- in cash and also took Rs.1,57,000/- through online mode, the proof of which the prosecutrix submitted in court. 5. The prosecutrix first lodged First Information Report. There was medical examination of her. 5. The prosecutrix first lodged First Information Report. There was medical examination of her. The investigating officer of the case used to tell the prosecutrix that phones are coming from several places to manage the case and the same was recorded by the prosecutrix and the same was filed in the court in a pen drive. To a question from Court, the prosecutrix told that the petitioner committed rape upon her in her rented accommodation at Lalpur in Ranchi. 6. Police after investigation of the case found lack of evidence against the petitioner and submitted Final Form and did not send up the petitioner for trial. During the investigation of the case, statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix was recorded in which she stated that in the year 2017 for the first time, physical relationship was established between the petitioner and the prosecutrix. On that day, the prosecutrix refused to have physical relationship with the petitioner but the petitioner said that they will marry each other. 7. After submission of Final Form, the prosecutrix filed Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 55 of 2023 and in her statement on solemn affirmation the prosecutrix has categorically stated that the petitioner invited her to his house, after there was love between them and when the prosecutrix was about to leave the house of the petitioner, the petitioner told him to stay back and thereafter forcibly committed rape upon her and when she raised uproar, the petitioner pressed her mouth and while trying to rescue herself she sustained minor injury. 8. On the basis of the protest-cum-complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (n)/420 of the Indian Penal Code and passed the summoning order. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the petitioner filed a petition for discharge as already indicated above and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti vide order dated 10.12.2024. 9. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manish Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 9. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manish Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 151 that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed its judgments in different cases, where the criminal jurisprudence on the scope of ‘consent’ in cases where sexual intercourse took place on the promise of marriage has been well established and also considered the judgment in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675 wherein the sexual intercourse which occurs on the promise of marriage, has been distinguished between a mere ‘breach of promise’ and ‘not fulfilling a false promise’. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in that case also considered the judgment of Deelip Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in (2005) 1 SCC 88 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed and set aside the conviction of the accused while holding that while there was breach of promise to marry, it was not a case of false promise to marry and in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further relied upon its own judgment in the case of Uday vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 wherein, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that consensus of judicial opinion is in favour of the view that the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact and as in the facts of that case, the complainant had agreed to indulge in intimate relations with the appellant of that case on the accord of her own desires and not on the basis of any false promise of marriage made by the appellant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the summoning order and all the proceedings. 11. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 11. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 897 wherein in the facts of that case, it appeared to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is more of an extra marital affair during the period without any insistence by the complainant for getting married to the appellant and fact that the complainant continued to have a physical relationship for a long time without any insistence on marriage would indicate the unlikelihood of any such promise made by the appellant for marrying her and it rather indicates that the relationship was a consensual one and went on to quash the FIR against the appellant of that case. 12. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Suman Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2025:JHHC:31147 wherein, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2021) 18 SCC 517 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the FIR and proceedings arising therefrom, in view of the following facts of that case:- (i) relationship between the accused and victim was consensual in nature; (ii) parties were in relationship for a period of one and a half years; (iii) subsequently, the accused person expressed disinclination to marry the victim. 13. It is then submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that this Court, in that case also relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prashant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2024 INSC 879 , in para-18 of which, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the accused person or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of any voluntary consent on her part. 14. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2024 INSC 879 , in para-18 of which, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the accused person or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of any voluntary consent on her part. 14. It is then submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prithivirajan vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police & Another vide order dated 20.01.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.12663 of 2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also relied upon its own judgment in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others reported in ( 2019) 9 SCC 608 and also in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others (supra) and reiterated the settled principle of law that only because physical relations were established based on a promise to marry, it will not amount to rape. For the offence of rape to be attracted, the following conditions need to be satisfied:- (i) The accused promised to marry the prosecutrix solely to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning; (ii) That the prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual relations by being directly influenced by such false promise of marriage. and in the facts of the case of Suman Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) before this Court as admittedly the victim and the petitioner are major persons and physical relationship between them continued for a period of a little less than three years and it was admitted case of the informant that the petitioner married the informant in her house but the only grievance of the informant was that the petitioner was not taking the informant to her matrimonial house, this Court was of the considered opinion that the allegation is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and quashed the FIR of that case. 15. 15. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that in her statement on solemn affirmation, the prosecutrix has developed her case departing from her statement made in the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 16. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the facts of this case are different from the fact of the cases, which has been relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner. It is next submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that this is a case of out and out commission of rape by the petitioner upon the prosecutrix. It is then submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that after commission of rape in this case, the petitioner promised to marry the prosecutrix and may be that could be a reason for the prosecutrix for not lodging the FIR immediately and further there is allegation of the petitioner blackmailing the prosecutrix by terrorizing her by intimating that he has captured the video of their first sexual intercourse, which was in fact a rape and extorted money from her also. So, commission of such offences and the prosecutrix upon being blackmailed for having physical relationship subsequently on a few occasions cannot extinguish or condone the offence of rape. 17. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 , it is submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. that in paragraph no. 18 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that there is clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case where there is a promise of marriage, the Court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls in the ambit of cheating or deception. Therefore, it is submitted that as this is a case where promise of marriage was made after satisfying the lust by the petitioner upon commission of rape upon the victim, coupled with the fact that even that promise to marry was made with mala fide motive without having any intention to marry the prosecutrix just to prevent the prosecutrix from immediately approaching the police, cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 18. 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, it is a settled principle of law that at the stage of passing the order in terms of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court has merely to value the evidence in the record in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused and if prima facie case is made out, charge is to be framed in terms of Section 228 of Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajbir Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in AIR 2006 SC 1963 has held that when the FIR makes out a case of commission of an offence, there cannot be an order of discharge, the accused then must face trial. 19. Now coming to the facts of the case, going by the statement on solemn affirmation of the prosecutrix, the petitioner forcibly committed rape upon her on the first occasion. She resisted the commission of rape, raised uproar but her mouth was pressed by the petitioner and in the process, she sustained minor injury. This, in the considered opinion of this Court is sufficient enough to constitute the offence of rape. She resisted the commission of rape, raised uproar but her mouth was pressed by the petitioner and in the process, she sustained minor injury. This, in the considered opinion of this Court is sufficient enough to constitute the offence of rape. The subsequent events are that after commission of rape upon the prosecutrix by the petitioner, the petitioner offered to marry the prosecutrix and thereafter the prosecutrix left the house of the petitioner and subsequently, it is the case of the prosecutrix that the petitioner blackmailed her, extorted money from her by telling that he has captured the first sexual encounter by them in the video and when she was resided at rented accommodation at Lalpur in Ranchi the petitioner had also physical sexual relationship with the victim on a few occasions but this is a case of out and out commission of rape on the first occasion and subsequently there was promise to marry the prosecutrix by the petitioner may be to prevent the prosecutrix from immediately going to the police and lodging the FIR. Unlike the facts of the cases of which were relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, this is not a case where the physical relationship started between the parties on the promise of marriage. So, in the considered opinion of this Court the ratio of all those judgments is not applicable to the facts of this case. 20. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the prosecutrix improved her case from what she has stated in the FIR and in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, there is no dichotomy in her statement as made in the FIR or the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the statement on solemn affirmation recorded by the Court. At the stage of framing of charge, certainly, the Court is not expected to apply the standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused. The Court at this stage need not undertake any elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the materials nor is it necessary to delve deep into the various aspects. All that the Court has to consider is whether the evidentiary materials in the record are if generally accepted would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. The Court at this stage need not undertake any elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the materials nor is it necessary to delve deep into the various aspects. All that the Court has to consider is whether the evidentiary materials in the record are if generally accepted would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more need be enquired into; as has been held in the case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia reported in (1989) 1 SCC 715 21. Under such circumstances, in view of the direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of commission of rape, this Court do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in finding prima facie case for the offence or for that matter the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in dismissing the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in S.T. Case No. 36 of 2024. Hence, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 22. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without of any merit is dismissed.