Jharkhand High Court
Vikash Jain vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 July, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:17668)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3032 of 2024
------
Vikash Jain, aged about 34 years, son of Kamlesh Kumar Jain,
Resident of Flat No.405, Shivam Housing Society, Lashkar, Gwalior,
P.O. and P.S.- Gwalior, District- Gwalior, State- Madhya Pradesh
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Victim ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, 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 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including
the order dated 25.05.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No.323 of 2022 arising out of
Gomia P.S. Case No.119 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1183 of 2021 by
the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat whereby
and where under the cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 376,
417, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner deceived the informant
and fraudulently and dishonestly induced the informant so deceived to consent
to go from Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand to Gwalior in the State of Madhya
Pradesh by falsely representing that he is an advocate by profession and is an
owner of a news channel; though in fact later on it was found that the petitioner
(2025:JHHC:17668)
has studied up to Class-12 and is an Insurance Agent. There is allegation
against the petitioner of committing rape upon the victim and later on
marrying her but subsequently causing hurt to her and intentionally insulting
her by provoking her to commit breach of peace and other offences. On the
basis of the written-report submitted by the informant, police registered Gomia
P.S. Case No.119 of 2021 and took up the investigation of the case. After
completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the
petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 376,
417, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and basing upon the same, the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the
said offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State
of Maharashtra & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230 and submits
that in the facts of that case; as the consensual relationship turns sour and the
partners became distant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that the
same cannot be a ground for invoking the criminal machinery of a State and
quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceedings of that case, and submits
that in this case also the allegation of commission of rape upon the informant is
palpably false. It is next submitted that the informant is a major lady and she
was a consenting party. It is further submitted that the informant filed Original
Matrimonial Title Suit No.51 of 2020 and the Additional Family Court, Ranchi
allowed the petition for divorce vide judgment dated 28.02.2022. It is further
submitted that the averments made in the complaint is false. It is also
submitted that the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.338 of 2021 in the
Family Court, Bhopal and vide judgment dated 11.04.2024, the marriage
(2025:JHHC:17668)
between the petitioner and the informant was declared void. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State, on the other hand, vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits
that the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of Amol Bhagwan
Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra & Another (supra) as in the case of Amol
Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra & Another (supra), there was no
allegation of cheating against the accused person of that case; unlike this case,
as in this case, the petitioner first resorted to cheating and induced and
deceived the informant by adopting fraudulent and dishonest means and
induced the informant to travel from Bokaro to Gwalior by making false claim
that he is an owner of a news channel and advocate by profession and but for
playing such deception, on the part of the petitioner and the inducement done
by him based on fraudulent and dishonest intention, the informant ought not
have gone to Gwalior from Bokaro; which she did only after being deceived.
So, the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is made
out against the petitioner based on the allegations made and in respect of
which, material was also collected by police, during the investigation of the
case and after the materials were brought on record then only the charge-sheet
for the said offences has already been filed and cognizance has been taken.
6. So far as the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the
State that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of
committing rape upon the informant in paragraph-14 of the F.I.R. The same
was found to be true, by the police during the investigation of the case. It was
not a case of establishing relationship on the promise of marriage but it is out
(2025:JHHC:17668)
and out a case of rape. Hence, the subsequent marriage and its dissolution or
being declared nullity will certainly not condone the rape committed by the
petitioner upon the informant and the same was also found to be true during
the investigation of the case, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in taking cognizance of the
offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code; upon
submission of the charge-sheet finding the said allegation to be true.
7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State further submits that there are
numerous occasions when the petitioner caused hurt to the informant by
assaulting her and causing hurt to her; which was also found to be true during
the investigation of the case, therefore, there is no illegality in respect of the
cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code either and similarly, there is also allegation of intentionally insulting and
provoking the informant in such a manner that she can commit breach of peace.
It is next submitted that since the only ground upon which the petitioner seeks
quashing of the entire criminal proceeding is that the allegations made against
him are false and the same can be at best, a defence of the petitioner but
certainly the same cannot be a ground for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding in exercise of the power under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being
without any merit, be dismissed.
8. 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 it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhishek Singh vs. Ajay Kumar &
(2025:JHHC:17668)
Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1313 paragraph-9 and 10 of which
read as under:-
"9. The scope of the Court's power to quash and set aside
proceedings is well-settled to warrant any restatement. While the
arguments advanced have the potential to raise many issues for
consideration, we must first satisfy ourselves as to the propriety of
the exercise of such power by the High Court. The task of the High
Court, when called upon to adjudicate an application seeking to
quash the proceedings, is to see whether, prima facie, an offence is
made out or not. It is not to examine whether the charges may hold
up in the Court. In doing so, the area of action is circumscribed.
In Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, it was held:
"8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under
Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only
when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet
constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged.
Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to
prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence
produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into
by the court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the
initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that
the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of
evidence while considering the petition filed under
Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is
clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima
facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence
alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a
criminal proceeding."
10. A reference may also be made to the recent decision of this Court
in Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P., where it was held that:
"18. It is well settled that when considering an application
under Section 482CrPC, the court cannot conduct a mini-
trial but instead is to be satisfied that prima facie the offences
as alleged are made out. To put it differently, it is to be seen,
without undertaking a minute examination of the record,
that there is some substance in the allegations made which
could meet the threshold of statutory language."
that it is a well settled principle of law that while considering an
application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the court cannot conduct a mini-trial
but instead has to be satisfied that prima facie the offences as alleged are made
out.
(2025:JHHC:17668)
9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the facts of this case are entirely
different from the facts of Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra &
Another (supra) as there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner
of cheating the informant, by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing her to go
from Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand to Gwalior in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, by falsely representing himself to be an owner of a news channel and
an advocate though in fact, he is undisputably neither the owner of any news
channel nor an advocate and for such cheating; the informant ought not have
gone to Gwalior, where she was subsequently ravished by the petitioner. There
is specific allegation of rape against the petitioner and the same was found to
be true by the police after investigation of the case. Similarly, there is also
allegation that the petitioner caused hurt to the informant on several occasions
and having intentionally insulted her, which could have provoked the
informant to commit offences.
10. It is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its power
under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot
embark upon a mini trial to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made.
Because of the discussions made above, suffice is to say that if the allegations
made in the F.I.R., the materials collected during the investigation of the case as
mentioned in various paragraphs of the case-diary and the charge-sheet are
considered to be true in their entirety, then certainly the offences punishable
under Sections 376, 417, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code are made out
against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is
not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P., be
allowed.
11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(2025:JHHC:17668)
12. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.10653 of 2024 stands
disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 03rd of July, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
