Jharkhand High Court

Salman Gaddi @ Raja Gaddi vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 9 September, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                            ( 2025:JHHC:27457 )




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr.M.P. No.964 of 2025
                                       ------

Salman Gaddi @ Raja Gaddi, son of Sikandar Gaddi, aged about 34 years, resident of Muhalla Matri Sadan, Gawali Patti, Indian Fitness Gym, P.S.-Jharia, P.O.-Jharia, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

                                                       ...             Petitioner
                                            Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                     ...           Opposite Party
                                             ------
             For the Petitioner        : Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate
                                       : Mr. Kashish Tiwary, Advocate
             For the State             : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
             For the Informant         : Mrs. Aulia Begum, Advocate
                                       : Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate
                                       : Md. Azam, Advocate
                                              ------
                                        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 B.N.S.S., 2023 with a

prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection

with G.R. No.2035 of 2024 arising out of Bank More (Bhuli O.P.) P.S. Case

No.176 of 2024 including the order taking cognizance dated 11.11.2024

passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad by which the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the

offences punishable under Sections 64(1) and 69 of the B.N.S., 2023

consequent upon submission of charge sheet against the petitioner by the

police after investigation of the case.

( 2025:JHHC:27457 )

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner first established

physical relationship with informant by adopting deceitful means and by

making promise to marry her without any intention of fulfilling the same

and had sexual intercourse with her. The petitioner also captured the

nude pictures of the informant and on 06.08.2024 the petitioner demanded

extortion of Rs.5 Lakhs from the informant/prosecutrix by threatening

her to make her obscene and nude photographs and videos viral. The

informant/prosecutrix begged the petitioner not to make the photograph

viral and not to have any relationship with the informant/prosecutrix.

But instead of acceding to the begging of the petitioner; the petitioner

forcibly committed rape upon the informant/prosecutrix and while

leaving, the petitioner threatened the prosecutrix that if the prosecutrix

informed about the occurrence to anyone, the petitioner will kill the

informant/prosecutrix and her family members and would make the

video viral. The prosecutrix was left with no option, but to commit

suicide, but while she was attempting to commit suicide, the same was

seen by her father who stopped her from doing the same and persuaded

her to report the matter to police for bringing the petitioner to book and

accordingly the informant/prosecutrix submitted the written report to the

police, basing upon which police registered Bank More (Bhuli O.P.) P.S.

Case No.176 of 2024 and police took up investigation of the case and after

completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet basing

( 2025:JHHC:27457 )

upon that cognizance of the offence has been taken by the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare vs.

State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC

3471, paragraph-28 of which reads as under:-

28. Thus, in a situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry her. Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact.""

and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India therein has

reiterated the settled principle of law that in a situation where physical

relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the

woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship

was purely because of the alleged promise made by the appellant to

marry her and it cannot be said that there was a vitiation of consent under

misconception of fact.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prashant vs. State of NCT

of Delhi reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3375 and submits that therein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the

( 2025:JHHC:27457 )

case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

(2019) 9 SCC 608, paragraph-18 of which reads as under:-

"18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the "consent" of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent" was vitiated by a "misconception of fact"

arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act."

and submits that the legal position has been summarized by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that to establish whether the "consent"

was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" arising out of a promise to

marry, two propositions must be established. Firstly, the promise of

marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no

intention of being adhered to at the time it was given and secondly, the

false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus

to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of

this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Munda vs. State of Jharkhand

reported in 2025: JHHC: 11820 and submits that therein this Court relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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

( 2025:JHHC:27457 )

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)"

reiterated 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegation

against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in a mechanical manner has taken

cognizance of the offences. It is then submitted that from the contents of

the FIR, it is apparent that the relationship between the petitioner and the

informant/prosecutrix was fully consensual. It is next submitted that

there is no allegation of any false promise made by the petitioner. It is

then submitted that there have been telephonic talks between the

petitioner and the informant/prosecutrix even after the occurrence of

alleged forcible rape without the consent of the prosecutrix, which took

place on 06.08.2024. It is next submitted that no explicit video has been

recovered from the petitioner, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as

prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

( 2025:JHHC:27457 )

8. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for

the informant/prosecutrix on the other hand vehemently oppose the

prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that it is

not only a case of physical relationship between the petitioner and the

prosecutrix for a long time simpliciter. It is next submitted that there is

direct and specific allegations of commission of forcible rape upon the

prosecutrix by the petitioner on 06.08.2024, without her consent and the

place of occurrence has also been mentioned, this was after the

informant/prosecutrix severed all her relationship with the petitioner

consequent upon demand of extortion of Rs.5 lakhs by the petitioner, by

threatening the informant/prosecutrix to make her obscene video and

photographs of the prosecutrix viral and the previous relationship which

was severed between the parties, can no way be a mitigating factor nor

confer any right upon the petitioner to commit rape upon the prosecutrix

on 06.08.2024. It is next submitted that the allegation of commission of

rape on 06.08.2024 was found to be true by the police during the

investigation of the case and after finding the allegations against the

petitioner to be true, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner

for having committed the offences punishable under Section 64 (1) and 69

of the B.N.S., 2023 and only after that, the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Dhanbad, basing upon the materials in the record including

the charge sheet submitted, has taken the cognizance of the said offences.

It is next submitted that the explicit videos which was made viral by the

( 2025:JHHC:27457 )

petitioner has been produced in pen drive by the prosecutrix, which has

been seized by the IO of the case during the investigation of the case and

the petitioner being a cunning person obviously managed to cause

destruction of the evidence of the same from being recovered from his

possession. It is next submitted that it being a settled principle of law that

at the time of framing of charge, the Court concerned can framed charges

for offences other than the offences in respect of which cognizance has

been taken, so it is open for the trial Court to frame appropriate charges

regarding extortion and other offences as is made out, but certainly,

quashing of this entire criminal proceeding at this nascent stage will

amount to miscarriage of justice, by allowing an accused of heinous

offence to go Scott free. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being

without any merit, be dismissed.

9. 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 facts of the case are entirely different

from the facts of the cases of Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of

Maharashtra and Another (Supra), Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi

(supra) and Rajesh Kumar Munda vs. State of Jharkhand (Supra); as

unlike in those cases, this is a case where there is direct and specific

allegation against the petitioner of forcibly committing rape upon the

prosecutrix on 06.08.2024; after the relationship between the petitioner

and the prosecutrix came to an end; upon demanding of Rs.5 Lakhs

( 2025:JHHC:27457 )

extortion by the petitioner by threatening the prosecutrix to make her

video viral. The undisputed facts remains that this allegation was found

to be true by the police in the investigation of the case and after finding

this allegation to be true, police has submitted charge sheet and basing

upon the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, has taken

cognizance of the offences, as already indicated above in the following

paragraphs of this judgment.

10. It is a settled principle of law that the defence of the petitioner and

the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be

considered by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section

482 Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, as that

would be job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh

Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501.

11. The contention of the petitioner that he is innocent or the allegation

against the petitioner are false are only defences of the petitioner and

certainly the same cannot be considered at this stage. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Harjinder Singh vs. State of

Punjab and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029 has

reiterated the settled principle of law that the defence of the accused

person of a case cannot be considered before prosecution adduces

evidence in paragraph-11 of the said judgment which reads as under:-

11.xxx The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence;

( 2025:JHHC:27457 )

the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence. Even assuming the documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at 06 : 30 a.m.; the chemist's bill and CCTV images are from 12 : 09 p.m. The confrontation is alleged at 08 : 30 a.m. A road journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening window. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure culminating in self- destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs. (Emphasis supplied)

12. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under

Section 482 CrPC which corresponds to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023,

the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled as has been held in the case of

Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others

reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781.

13. In view of the discussions made above as the materials in the record

go to show that the same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable

under Section 64(1) of the B.N.S., 2023, hence, this Court is of the

considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer made by the

petitioner in this Cr.M.P. to quash and set aside the entire criminal

proceeding in connection with G.R. No.2035 of 2024 arising out of Bank

More (Bhuli O.P.) P.S. Case No.176 of 2024 including the order taking