Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 17 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:11820]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.637 of 2025
------
Rajesh Kumar Munda, aged about 34 years, son of Dandu Munda,
resident of Netuwa, Hariharpur, PO and PS- Haripur, District
Ramgarh.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Chander, Advocate
Ms. Manjusha Priya, Advocate
(both through V.C.)
Ms. Khushboo Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita though in the cause-title of the petition it has been mentioned that this
application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. This
criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the FIR
of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.368 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable
under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is a constable
with JAP-7, Hazaribagh and he came in contact with the victim who is also a
lady constable with Jharkhand Police posted in JAP-9, Sahibganj. While taking
training, there was exchange of mobile number between them. The petitioner
represented to the victim that he is unmarried and is in love with the victim
and expressed his desire to marry the victim. The petitioner established
[2025:JHHC:11820]
physical relationship with the victim in July, 2019 and such physical
relationship continued for five years; as and when the victim was coming home
after taking leave and the petitioner was simultaneously taking leave. The
physical relationship used to be established in the house of the victim in her
village. The petitioner used to establish physical relationship with the victim all
the time with the promise of marriage and he promised that he will send his
parents to talk about their marriage, to the house of the victim but ultimately
the victim could know that the petitioner is going to marry with another
women and the date of his marriage is fixed on 11.07.2024. On the basis of the
written report submitted by the victim, police registered the said Sukhdeonagar
P.S. Case No.368 of 2024 on 09.07.2024. It is submitted at the Bar that the
investigation of the case is still going on.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs.
State of Maharashtra & Others reported in MANU SC 1142 2019 and submits
that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that to establish a
false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of
upholding his word at the time of giving it. It is next submitted that there is no
allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had no intention of
marrying the victim at the time of making the promise of marrying her. It is
then submitted that admittedly, both the petitioner and the victim are major
persons and no force was used in establishing the physical relationship
between them. Hence, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner
are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of
the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is
[2025:JHHC:11820]
submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
be allowed.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand submits that
the case is at its initial stage and the investigation of the case is going on.
Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without
any merit, be dismissed at this stage.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going
through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that
in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
AIR 2021 SC 1405, para-11 of which reads as under:-
"11. Bearing in mind the tests which have been enunciated in
the above decision, we are of the view that even assuming that all
the allegations in the FIR are correct for the purposes of considering
the application for quashing under Section 482 of CrPC, no offence
has been established. There is no allegation to the effect that the
promise to marry given to the second respondent was false at the
inception. On the contrary, it would appear from the contents of the
FIR that there was a subsequent refusal on the part of the appellant
to marry the second respondent which gave rise to the registration
of the FIR. On these facts, we are of the view that the High Court
was in error in declining to entertain the petition under Section 482
of CrPC on the basis that it was only the evidence at trial which
would lead to a determination as to whether an offence was
established. (Emphasis supplied)"
the principle of law has been settled that a breach of promise cannot be
said to be a false promise and to establish a false promise, the maker should
have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it.
7. Now coming to the facts of the case, the informant/victim contends that
she agreed for the physical relationship with the petitioner upon promise made
by the petitioner to marry her but there is no allegation against the petitioner
that the petitioner ever refused to marry her or had no intention to marry her at
any point of time.
[2025:JHHC:11820]
8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in
the absence of any allegation against the petitioner of having no intention to
marry the victim at the time of making the promise to marry her; even if the
entire allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner is considered to be true
in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
view that the continuation of the FIR of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.368 of 2024
will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the FIR of
Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.368 of 2024 be quashed and set aside against the
petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the FIR of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.368 of 2024 is
quashed and set aside against the petitioner.
10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petitioner is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 17th of April, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
