[2026:JHHC:11030] 1 Cr. M.P. No.928 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.928 of 2026 ------ Anirup Chik Braik @ Anirup Baraik, aged about 22 years, Son of Chandradev Baraik, Resident of village- Korgo Batuwa Toli Netarhat, P.O. – Netarhat, P.S.- Netarhat, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to set aside the entire criminal prosecution including the charge-sheet and order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2025 in connection with Lohardaga (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 01 of 2026 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 115(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 against the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner by adopting deceitful means and by making a promise to marry the informant without fulfilling the same, had sexual intercourse with her continuously for three years and caused miscarriage of the child of the informant against her will and [2026:JHHC:11030] 2 Cr. M.P. No.928 of 2026 when the informant told the petitioner to solemnize marriage with her, the petitioner and his family members abused the informant and refused the marriage. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Lohardaga (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police found the allegations against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 69 and 115(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and basing upon the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga has taken cognizance of the offences as already indicated above. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Suman Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2025:JHHC:31147 wherein the case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 493 of the Indian Penal Code and submits that in the facts of that case as it was the admitted case of the informant and the petitioner in that case that the petitioner has married the informant in her house but the only grievance of the informant was that the petitioner is not taking the informant to her matrimonial house, that is the house of the petitioner himself, this Court in the facts of that case was of the opinion that the allegations are insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in this case also; as both the petitioner and the informant are major persons having consensual sexual relationship for three years, hence, [2026:JHHC:11030] 3 Cr. M.P. No.928 of 2026 neither the offence punishable under Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2023 nor the offence punishable under Section 115(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is unexplained delay of more than three months in the lodgement of the First Information Report. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the offence involved in this case is not under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or the pari materia provision thereof in B.N.S., 2023 being Section 64 of the B.N.S., 2023; rather the offence involved in this case is Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2023 for which there was no pari materia provision in the Indian Penal Code. Learned Addl.P.P. next submits that the undisputed fact remains that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the informant both by adopting deceitful means and by making promise to marry her without any intention of fulfilling the same, hence, the ratio of the judgment of the case of Suman Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) which involves the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted to the facts of this case and also because the facts of that case are entirely different from the facts of this case. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the learned Addl.P.P. submits that the same can be [2026:JHHC:11030] 4 Cr. M.P. No.928 of 2026 considered only in the trial as the punishment is more than three years, for the offence involved in this case. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2023 are as under:- (i) The accused has sexual intercourse with the victim; (ii) Such sexual intercourse does not amount to the offence of rape; (iii) The accused adopted deceitful means for having sexual intercourse with the victim; or (iv) The accused made promise to marry the victim without any intention of fulfilling the same for having sexual intercourse with the victim 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner of this case both adopted the deceitful means to have sexual intercourse with the informant and also he made promise to the informant to marry her, without any intention of fulfilling the same. The allegation against the petitioner was found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case and only after that, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. [2026:JHHC:11030] 5 Cr. M.P. No.928 of 2026 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the direct and specific allegation against the petitioner to constitute the offence punishable under Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2023, this is not a fit case where the entire criminal prosecution be quashed and set aside on the ground that no offence punishable under Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2026 is made out against the petitioner. 9. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of in the case of Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, paragraph no. 37 of which reads as under:- “37. It is settled law that delay in registration of the FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal investigation. The delay will assume importance only when the complainant fails to give a plausible explanation and whether the explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by the Trial Court only after recording the evidence. In this context, the Supreme Court in Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 795 has held, “The mere delay on the part of the third respondent complainant in lodging the complaint, cannot by itself be a ground to quash the FIR. The law is too well settled on this aspect to warrant any reference to precedents…..”” (Emphasis supplied) that delay in registration of the FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal investigation. The delay will assume importance only when the complainant fails to give a plausible explanation and whether the explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by the Trial Court only after recording the evidence. [2026:JHHC:11030] 6 Cr. M.P. No.928 of 2026 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2023 provides for maximum punishment of 10 years and also fine. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal prosecution is to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the delay in lodging the FIR, when trial is yet to take place. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason for this Court to accede to the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of April, 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 20/04/2026