[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Kamleshwar Kumar Bharti vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 19 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:1455 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1049 of 2025
------
Kamleshwar Kumar Bharti, aged about 56 years, Son of Sri Hari
Ram, resident of Lahsigna Road, Ambedkar Puri, P.O.-Hazaribagh,
P.S.-Hazaribagh (Sadar), District-Hazaribagh (Jharkhand), at present
resident of District Animal Husbandry Office, Pakur, P.O.-Pakur,
P.S.-Pakur (T), Dist.-Pakur.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kr. Choubey, Advocate
: Mr. Jalaj Pati Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, 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 quash and set aside the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur whereby and where under the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur has taken cognizance for the
offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(b), 74, 115(2), 351(2), 75(2), 79 of
the B.N.S., 2023 against the petitioner in connection with Pakur (T) P.S.
Case No.296 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.161 of 2025 on the
basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police after investigation of the
case.
( 2026:JHHC:1455 )
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being a
public servant committed rape upon the informant who was engaged as a
contractual Junior Division Clerk in the office of District Animal
Husbandry, Pakur on outsourcing basis while the petitioner was posted
as District Animal Husbandry Officer in the district of Pakur. There is also
allegation against the petitioner of using criminal force to the informant
with intent to outrage her modesty, causing sexual harassment to her,
besides uttering words and making gestures with intent to insult the
modesty of the informant, who is a woman, causing simple hurt to the
informant, committing criminal intimidation to the informant. On the
basis of the written report of the informant, police registered Pakur (T)
P.S. Case No.296 of 2024 and took up investigation of the case, after
completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the
petitioner after finding the allegations against the petitioner to be true for
having committed the said offences as already indicated above and on the
basis of the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur has taken
cognizance of the offences in respect of which charge sheet was submitted
against the petitioner by the police.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is next fixed
on 27.01.2026 for the purpose of consideration of framing of charge.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kunal Chatterjee vs. The
State of West Bengal & Others dated 29.07.2025 in Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No.7004 of 2025 wherein the facts of that case, the victim
( 2026:JHHC:1455 )
girl when she was of 15 years of age had a consensual relationship with
the appellant after the appellant had promised to marry her but after the
victim became major, the appellant backed out from the promise of
marriage, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relying upon several of its
judgments wherein it was held that promise to marriage and subsequent
physical relationship between two with consent would not amount to
rape and particularly considering a long delay of 3 years in lodging the
FIR held that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in that case would
amount to abuse of process of law and quashed the entire criminal
proceeding.
6. It is next submitted that in this case also, the first occurrence of rape
has been taken place in the year 2021, while the FIR was lodged on
26.11.2024 and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding be
quashed because of the delay in lodging the FIR.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Surendra Khawse vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
2043 and submits that in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the facts of the case wherein, the complainant and the accused were
colleagues for past five years and somewhere during this time their
relationship progressed and that the accused person had initiated legal
processes/administrative processes against the complainant much prior
to the FIR was lodged and that the same was lodged four months after the
( 2026:JHHC:1455 )
alleged incident of forced sexual intercourse with the informant and the
facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India quashed the charge
sheet against the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
and submits that in this case also, the petitioner having falsely been
implicated, as the petitioner has removed the informant from service on
18.11.2024, hence, this false case has been foisted. It is next submitted that
the petitioner further denied writing any apology letter as claimed by the
informant and though the last occurrence took place on 20.10.2024, but
FIR has been lodged on 26.11.2024. It is next submitted that by a cryptic
order, cognizance has been taken. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as
prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
8. Learned Addl.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 the case of Kunal Chatterjee vs. The State of West Bengal &
Others and Surendra Khawse vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another. It
is next submitted that this is not a case of, one off occurrence of rape, but
there is allegation against the petitioner of first committing rape upon the
informant is a condition to engage her as a Junior Division Clerk and
subsequently there are further allegations of using criminal force upon the
informant with intent to outrage her modesty, committing sexual
harassment of the informant by establishing physical contact and
advances involving unwelcomed and explicit sexual overtures and
demanding and requesting for sexual favours by making calls in the
( 2026:JHHC:1455 )
unearthly hours to the informant by making calls over social media
platforms and chats. There is further allegation against the petitioner of
intending to insult the modesty of the informant uttering the words and
gestures intending that the same shall be heard and seen by the informant
woman. It is next submitted that there is further allegation that the
petitioner has captured the intimate scene of him with the informant by
preparing video and threatened the informant that unless she gives into
his unlawful advances and favours, he will make the said video viral on
social media. It is next submitted that the police found the allegations
against the petitioner to be true and the informant in her statement under
Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has also supported the case of the
prosecution. It is next submitted that the police found each of the
allegations to be true during the investigation of the case and the claim of
the petitioner that the allegations against him are all false is a defence
which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case, but when the
evidence of the prosecution is yet to begin at this stage, it is not open for
this Court to consider the defence of the petitioner in exercise of its power
under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. It is lastly 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, this Court
finds that there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of
once committing rape upon the informant for giving her employment as a
Junior Division Clerk in the District Animal Husbandry Office, Pakur. The
( 2026:JHHC:1455 )
undisputed facts remains that the petitioner was a public servant posted
as District Animal Husbandry Officer of Pakur and the informant was
working in that office as a Junior Division Clerk being engaged through
outsourcing agency. There is direct and specific allegation against the
petitioner of sending WhatsApp messages in the late night and indulging
in obscene chat with the informant between 11 PM to 12 midnight and
making calls also. There is direct allegation against the petitioner of giving
in writing his apology for the offence committed by him and promising
not to repeat such offence and all these allegations were found to be true
by the police during the investigation of the case.
10. Under such overwhelming materials available in the record, this
Court has no hesitation in holding that the facts of this case are entirely
different from the facts of the case of Kunal Chatterjee vs. The State of
West Bengal & Others (supra) and Surendra Khawse vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Another (supra).
11. 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 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which
corresponds to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 by the High Court, 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.
12. It is also a settled principle of law that the power under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 cannot be
( 2026:JHHC:1455 )
exercised by the High Court to conduct a mini trial as has been reiterated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC
594, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"Having gone through the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it
appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini
trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while
deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed
and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial
can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power
under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of
deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High
Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the
particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)
13. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view
that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner
in this Cr.M.P. is to be acceded in exercise of the power under Section 528
of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
14. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 19th of January, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 22/01/2026
