Jharkhand High Court
Sagar Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 September, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:28452)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 684 of 2024
Sagar Kumar Gupta, aged about 24 years, son of Ramnandan Prasad
Gupta, resident of Village-Pandedih, P.O.-Sijua, P.S.-Baghmara, Dist.-
Dhanbad
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate
: Ms. Vidhika Saboo, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Vikash Anand, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed with a prayer to implead the informant
as opposite party no.2 in view of the settlement between the
parties outside the court.
3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer is allowed.
4. The petitioner is directed to implead the informant as opposite
party no.2 in the cause title of this criminal miscellaneous petition
during the course of the day.
(2025:JHHC:28452)
5. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the
prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding along with the
FIR in connection with Tetulmari P.S. Case No. 29 of 2023,
corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 765 of 2023 and G.R. No. 2099
of 2023 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad
though in page nos. 3 and 12, it has wrongly been mentioned as
Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Dhanbad. Prayer has
further been made to quash the entire charge sheet and
subsequent reliefs.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the informant was in
love with the petitioner for four years prior to institution of the
case and the petitioner promised to marry her and requested her
to have physical relationship with him. Consequent upon such
promise, the petitioner has been sexually exploiting the victim for
four years. On 29.06.2023 when the informant proposed the
petitioner to marry her as he has already got the employment, the
petitioner refused to do the same and assaulted and abused the
informant.
(2025:JHHC:28452)
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was
not having the intention to marry the victim at the time of making
the promise. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable
under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. So far as
the other offences are concerned, it is jointly submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 by drawing attention of this Court to the
Interlocutory Application No.3704 of 2025 which is supported by
separate affidavits of the petitioner and the informant-opposite
party no. 2; that therein it has categorically been mentioned that
the dispute between the parties has already been settled outside
the Court. Therefore, the informant does not want to proceed with
the case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Madhukar &
Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. passed in Criminal
Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7212 of 2023 dated 14.07.2025,
paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under:-
"6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under
Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous
nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving
such offences on the ground of settlement between the
parties is discouraged and should not be permitted
lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section
482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained
by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference
to the facts of each case."
(2025:JHHC:28452)
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that
the power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the
ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be
exercised with reference to the facts of each case. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous
petition be allowed.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no serious objection.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials 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 Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 1405 paragraphs-
9 to 11 of which read as under:-
"9. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), while dealing
with a similar situation, the principles of law which
must govern a situation like the present were
enunciated in the following observations:
"Where the promise to marry is false and the
intention of the maker at the time of making the
promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive
the woman to convince her to engage in sexual
relations, there is a "misconception of fact" that
vitiates the woman's "consent". On the other hand,
a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false
promise. 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...
" 10. Further, the Court has observed:
"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
(2025:JHHC:28452)
promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or
bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to
engage in the sexual act."
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)
that in case of long-standing sexual relationship between the
couple, if there is no allegation to the fact that the promise to
marry was given without having any intention to uphold such
promise at the time of giving it, then it will not amount to a false
promise.
8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no
allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had no
intention to marry the victim at the time of promising to marry
her.
9. Under such circumstances, keeping in view the admitted case of
the informant, that she was having physical relationship with the
petitioner for four years and in the absence of any allegation that
petitioner has no intention to marry the victim at the time of
promising to marry her; as also the fact that both the victim and
the petitioner were major persons, at the time of alleged
(2025:JHHC:28452)
occurrence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the
entire allegation are considered to be true in their entirety, still,
the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is
not made out.
10. So far as the other offences are concerned, in view of the
compromise between the parties, there is no chance of conviction
of the petitioner as the informant does not want to proceed with
the case.
11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner
will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where
the entire criminal proceeding along with the FIR in connection
with Tetulmari P.S. Case No. 29 of 2023, corresponding to Sessions
Trial No. 765 of 2023 and G.R. No. 2099 of 2023 as also the entire
charge sheet be quashed and set aside.
12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding along with the FIR
in connection with Tetulmari P.S. Case No. 29 of 2023,
corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 765 of 2023 and G.R. No. 2099
of 2023 as also the entire charge sheet is quashed and set aside.
13. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
14. Consequently, Interlocutory Application No. 3704 of 2025 is
disposed of.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 17th September, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
