Jharkhand High Court
Jahur Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 25 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 708 of 2022
Jahur Ansari .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, Advocate
......
07/ 25.01.2023. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding including FIR in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No.33 of
2022 instituted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. As per the case of the prosecution set out in the FIR, the informant along
with the accused/ petitioner was running an NGO and used to travel together in
connection with its work. They had to remain out of station in this connection and
on false promise of marriage, the accused/ petitioner established physical
relationship with her. They opened the office of the NGO in Barkatha and both
commenced living together as husband and wife. When the wife of the accused/
petitioner came to know about this, the accused/ petitioner left her company and
when she went to inquire about this at his house, she was badly abused by the
mother and wife of the accused.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on these
allegations, no prima-facie case under Section 376 IPC will be made out. The
allegations do not disclose an element of force and coercion in the averment made
in the FIR which is the essence of the offence under Section 376 IPC. Reliance in
this regard has been placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., reported in 2019(9) SCC
608 at Para 21, wherein on similar fact and situation, it has been held that offence
under Section 376 IPC was not made out as there was no allegation in the FIR
when the appellant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith or
with the intention to deceive her.
4. The prosecutrix is a major lady and there is no allegation of force and
coercion applied in obtaining the physical relationship which was altogether
consensual in nature.
5. Learned APP for the Sate assisted by learned counsel for the complainant
has vehemently opposed the prayer. It is submitted that consent obtained on
deception cannot be termed as consensual relationship unless the investigation is
complete by examining total materials appearing against accused/ petitioner and it
will be premature at this stage to dispose of the instant Cr. M. P.
6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available
on record. The case completely rests upon the statement of the prosecutrix as well
as upon the FIR. She has not made any allegation of force or coercion against the
petitioner/ accused. They had been working in NGO and running it together,
travelled extensively and had consented physical relationship for about one and
half years. In absence of any allegation of force or coercion, offence under Section
376 IPC will not be made out. At best it will be a case under Section 417 IPC.
Since the matter is still under investigation, the instant Cr. M. P. stands
disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue at the time of framing
of charge.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
