The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the veracity of the allegations made by the complainant cannot be tested in exercise of the power vested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same can only be done by a full-dress trial.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the minor son of the informant was in the remand home and the Petitioner used to be the probation officer of that remand home. The informant used to pay regular visits to the remand home in order to meet her minor son and the Petitioner took advantage of the informant’s vulnerable position and made obscene chats with the informant and by sedating her by making her drink cold drinks with sedatives, committed rape upon her against her will several times and also solemnized marriage in a temple with the informant to legalize his illegal activities; though both the petitioner and informant were having subsisting marriages respectively and were not eligible for a valid Hindu Marriage. The learned judicial magistrate took cognizance of the offense punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to issue summons.
The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to quash the FIR registered for the offense punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was furthermore submitted that the informant itself admitted that her marriage was solemnized with the Petitioner, therefore, Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code is attracted to the present case.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, Bhagwan Lal Mahli @ Bhagwan Lal Mahali vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another, S. Rajadurai vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another, Deepak Kumar Yadav @ Deepak Kr. Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand & Another.
Contentions of the Opposite Party no. 2
The Opposite party no. 2 submitted that the consent of the physical relationship was taken under duress by extending the threat of hurt to the minor son and was taken in the capacity of a Probation Officer and had taken advantage of his position. It was furthermore submitted it can’t be said that the informant has contended for a physical relationship.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the facts of the case on which the Petitioner relied are entirely different from the facts of the present case.
It was furthermore observed that the only way to determine if the complainant's allegations are true is to conduct a full-dress trial rather than using the authority granted by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prima facie case has been made out against the Petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code if the accusations made in the First Information Report, the statement made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and other materials gathered by the police during the case investigation, including the victim's medical examination report, are accepted to be true in their entirety.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that it is not a fit case where the FIR can be quashed and set aside.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Case title: Jan Ranjan Sinha @ Jan Ranjan Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case no.: Cr.M.P. No.1020 of 2023
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
