( 2026:JHHC:12842 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3697 of 2025 ------ Sahdev Singh @ Sahdeo Singh, aged about 32 years, son of Sunder Singh, Resident of Village-Beratulunda, P.O.-Dumrita, P.S.- Anandpur, Singhbhum, District-West at present Police Sub-Inspector posted at S.I. Potka, P.O. & P.S.-Potka, District-East Singhbhum Jamshedpur. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY I.A. No.5892 of 2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of the instant Cr.M.P. Since, the hearing of instant Cr.M.P. is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) ( 2026:JHHC:12842 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025 I.A. No.5893 of 2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to amend the Cr.M.P. No. 3697 of 2025 by making additional prayer for quashing the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.153 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti has framed charges against the petitioner, in para-1 and prayer portion of this Cr.M.P. It is next submitted that the proposed amendment was necessitated because of the developments which took place after filing of this criminal miscellaneous petition. It is next submitted that the proposed amendment will not change the nature and character of this Cr.M.P. It is lastly submitted that unless the proposed amendment is allowed, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer for amendment made in this interlocutory application is allowed. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner files a consolidated criminal miscellaneous petition, keep the same in the record. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.3697 of 2025 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 BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 09.09.2025 passed in Khunti Mahila P.S. Case no.09 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.460 of 2025 (S.T. Case No.153 of 2025) by ( 2026:JHHC:12842 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti whereby and where under cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, as well as the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.153 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the court below has framed charges against the petitioner. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the brother in law (Devar) of the elder sister of the informant and trapped the informant taking advantage of the fact that the husband of the informant was in jail in connection with a murder case and brushing aside the protest of the informant, the petitioner used to go to the house of the informant and was residing there in the night also. The petitioner established physical relationship with the informant several times by promising to marry her and advised the informant to dissolve her marriage with her husband Nitranjan Singh. The informant became pregnant because of her physical relationship with the petitioner and gave birth to a child on 04.09.2021. In the case for dissolution of her marriage with her husband vide MTS Case No.24 of 2021 at the instance of the petitioner, the informant deposed in her examination in chief that she is not having any relationship with anyone and she has no children and it was also mentioned therein that it is false to say that the informant has given birth to a child because of its illicit relationship with the petitioner. There is further allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner used to live with the informant as husband and wife and was establishing physical relationship by saying that the moment, the marriage of the ( 2026:JHHC:12842 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025 informant with her husband Nitranjan Singh would dissolve, the petitioner will marry her. The M.T.S. Case No.24 of 2021 was to be withdrawn because of some procedural legal error and fresh Matrimonial Case No.09 of 2025 was instituted but after receiving the said information, the petitioner refused to marry the informant. 4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Khunti Mahila P.S. Case No.09 of 2025 and took up investigation of the case, after completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and on the basis of the charge sheet, the learned Court took cognizance of the offences and after commitment of case to the Court of Sessions, charge has also been framed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far, no witness has been examined during the trial. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnish Singh @ Soni vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in [2025] 3 S.C.R. 303 : 2025 INSC 308 and submits that in para-25, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that prolonged period of 16 years during which the sexual relations continued unabatedly between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that, in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgement in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 ( 2026:JHHC:12842 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3471 wherein it was reiterated that in a situation where the woman knowingly maintains the physical relationship for a prolonged period, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of alleged promise made by the accused to marry her. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgement in the case of Prashant vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3375, wherein it was observed that it is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the accused or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgement in the case of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675 and submits that in para-24 of which it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim and in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed and set aside the order passed by the High Court, hence, the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 10. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant ( 2026:JHHC:12842 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025 Cr.M.P and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of forcibly establishing physical relationship with the informant and the same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. 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 undisputed facts remains that the FIR was instituted more than 4 years after the informant give birth to her son, the paternity of him is attributed to the petitioner by the informant. There is also allegation that prior to the birth of the son of the informant, the petitioner was continuously having sexual relationship with the informant, so it is apparent that if the averments made in the FIR are considered to be true in their entirety, then the petitioner was having physical relationship continuously with the informant for a period of at least more than 5 years. 12. In view of the principle of law reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnish Singh @ Soni vs. State of U.P. and Another (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that in the absence of any material to suggest that at the time of making the promise by the petitioner to marry the informant, the petitioner had no intention to marry her and in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the allegations against the petitioner are considered ( 2026:JHHC:12842 ) 7 Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025 to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against ingredient of that offence against the petitioner, therefore, as none of the offences in respect of which charge sheet has been submitted is 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 including the order dated 09.09.2025 passed in Khunti Mahila P.S. Case no.09 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.460 of 2025 (S.T. Case No.153 of 2025) by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti whereby and where under cognizance has been taken against the petitioner as well as the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.153 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the court below has framed charges against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 14. 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 09.09.2025 passed in Khunti Mahila P.S. Case no.09 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.460 of 2025 (S.T. Case No.153 of 2025) by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti whereby and where under the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner as well as the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.153 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the ( 2026:JHHC:12842 ) 8 Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025 court below has framed charges against the petitioner, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 15. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th of April, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 06/05/2026