[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Anirup Chik Braik @ Anirup Baraik vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 16 April, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                   [2026:JHHC:11030]



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr.M.P. No.928 of 2026
                                      ------

Anirup Chik Braik @ Anirup Baraik, aged about 22 years, Son of Chandradev Baraik, Resident of village- Korgo Batuwa Toli Netarhat, P.O. - Netarhat, P.S.- Netarhat, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.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 B.N.S.S., 2023 with

the prayer to set aside the entire criminal prosecution including the

charge-sheet and order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2025 in

connection with Lohardaga (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025

corresponding to G.R. Case No. 01 of 2026 whereby and where under

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga has taken cognizance

of the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 115(2) of the B.N.S.,

2023 against the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the allegation against the

petitioner is that the petitioner by adopting deceitful means and by

making a promise to marry the informant without fulfilling the same,

had sexual intercourse with her continuously for three years and

caused miscarriage of the child of the informant against her will and

[2026:JHHC:11030]

when the informant told the petitioner to solemnize marriage with her,

the petitioner and his family members abused the informant and

refused the marriage. On the basis of the written report submitted by

the informant, police registered Lohardaga (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 23 of

2025 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the

investigation, police found the allegations against the petitioner to be

true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having

committed the offence punishable under Section 69 and 115(2) of the

B.N.S., 2023 and basing upon the same, the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Lohardaga has taken cognizance of the offences as already

indicated above.

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

this Court in the case of Suman Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand

reported in 2025:JHHC:31147 wherein the case was registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 376 and 493 of the Indian Penal

Code and submits that in the facts of that case as it was the admitted

case of the informant and the petitioner in that case that the petitioner

has married the informant in her house but the only grievance of the

informant was that the petitioner is not taking the informant to her

matrimonial house, that is the house of the petitioner himself, this

Court in the facts of that case was of the opinion that the allegations are

insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 of

the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits

that in this case also; as both the petitioner and the informant are major

persons having consensual sexual relationship for three years, hence,

[2026:JHHC:11030]

neither the offence punishable under Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2023 nor

the offence punishable under Section 115(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is made

out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that there is unexplained delay of more than three months in

the lodgement of the First Information Report. Hence, it is submitted

that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be

allowed.

5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand

vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the offence involved in this

case is not under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or the pari

materia provision thereof in B.N.S., 2023 being Section 64 of the B.N.S.,

2023; rather the offence involved in this case is Section 69 of the B.N.S.,

2023 for which there was no pari materia provision in the Indian Penal

Code. Learned Addl.P.P. next submits that the undisputed fact remains

that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the

petitioner had sexual intercourse with the informant both by adopting

deceitful means and by making promise to marry her without any

intention of fulfilling the same, hence, the ratio of the judgment of the

case of Suman Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) which

involves the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal

Code is not attracted to the facts of this case and also because the facts

of that case are entirely different from the facts of this case. So far as the

contention of the petitioner regarding delay in lodging the FIR is

concerned, the learned Addl.P.P. submits that the same can be

[2026:JHHC:11030]

considered only in the trial as the punishment is more than three years,

for the offence involved in this case. Hence, it is submitted that this

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be

dismissed.

6. 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 essential ingredients to constitute the

offence punishable under Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2023 are as under:-

(i) The accused has sexual intercourse with the victim;

(ii) Such sexual intercourse does not amount to the offence

of rape;

(iii) The accused adopted deceitful means for having sexual

intercourse with the victim; or

(iv) The accused made promise to marry the victim without

any intention of fulfilling the same for having sexual

intercourse with the victim

7. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific

allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner of this case both

adopted the deceitful means to have sexual intercourse with the

informant and also he made promise to the informant to marry her,

without any intention of fulfilling the same. The allegation against the

petitioner was found to be true by the police during the investigation

of the case and only after that, charge sheet has been submitted against

the petitioner.

[2026:JHHC:11030]

8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view

that in view of the direct and specific allegation against the petitioner

to constitute the offence punishable under Section 69 of the B.N.S.,

2023, this is not a fit case where the entire criminal prosecution be

quashed and set aside on the ground that no offence punishable under

Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2026 is made out against the petitioner.

9. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding the delay in

lodging the FIR is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been

reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of in the case of Punit

Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 983, paragraph no. 37 of which reads as under:-

"37. It is settled law that delay in registration of the FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal investigation. The delay will assume importance only when the complainant fails to give a plausible explanation and whether the explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by the Trial Court only after recording the evidence. In this context, the Supreme Court in Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 795 has held, "The mere delay on the part of the third respondent complainant in lodging the complaint, cannot by itself be a ground to quash the FIR. The law is too well settled on this aspect to warrant any reference to precedents.....""

(Emphasis supplied)

that delay in registration of the FIR for offences punishable with

imprisonment of more than three years cannot be the basis of

interdicting a criminal investigation. The delay will assume

importance only when the complainant fails to give a plausible

explanation and whether the explanation is plausible or not, has to be

decided by the Trial Court only after recording the evidence.

[2026:JHHC:11030]

10. Now coming to the facts of the case, Section 69 of the B.N.S.,

2023 provides for maximum punishment of 10 years and also fine.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that

this is not a fit case where the entire criminal prosecution is to be