Jharkhand High Court
Arjun Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 18 August, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:23913)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2098 of 2025
------
Arjun Singh, aged about 38 Years Son of Harishankar Singh resident
of Village Dumardih, P.O. and P.S. Kurdeg Dist Simdega.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in connection with Simdega P.S.
Case No.153 of 2024 in which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega
has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 376, 313, 504,
506, 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, without having
any intention to marry the prosecutrix since the beginning, as he was married
earlier but suppressing his earlier marriage from the prosecutrix, by falsely
representing the prosecutrix that the petitioner was a bachelor, fraudulently
obtained the consent of the prosecutrix by forming a web of love and thus,
committed rape upon the prosecutrix and made her pregnant and when the
1 Cr. M.P. No.2098 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:23913)
prosecutrix became pregnant, the petitioner without the consent of the
prosecutrix, caused the miscarriage of the child and later on intentionally
insulted and criminally intimidated her, besides causing hurt to her. On the
basis of the written-report submitted by the prosecutrix, Simdega P.S. Case
No.153 of 2024 was registered and police took up the investigation of the case.
After completion of the investigation, police found the allegation against the
petitioner to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for
having committed the offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance and basing upon the same, the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance of the said
offences as already indicated above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the
petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the informant is a major lady and the
relationship between the parties was a consensual one. It is next submitted that
the relationship between the parties continued for several years and both the
petitioner and the informant are employed in the Police Department of
Government of Jharkhand. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for
in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
5. 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 it is a settled principle of law that if an accused without having any
intention to marry the prosecutrix since the very beginning resorted to fraud
and obtains the consent of the victim for giving in to his sexual desire, that
cannot be treated as a consent and such act of the accused person will amount
2 Cr. M.P. No.2098 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:23913)
to rape and this is exactly the case here, where the petitioner, without having
any intention to marry the victim since the very beginning, fraudulently
obtained her consent by misrepresentation and fraud and additionally there is
direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of causing the miscarriage of
the prosecutrix without her consent. Hence, both the offences punishable under
Sections 376 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code which are triable by the court of
Sessions, are made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that it is
also a settled principle of law that the question of consent of a prosecutrix is
really a matter of defence by the accused, hence, the defence of the petitioner
cannot be put forth before the evidence of the prosecution begins nor this Court
can enter into a mini trial to verify the defence of the petitioner at this stage
when the prosecution evidence is yet to begin. Hence, it is submitted that this
Cr.M.P., 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 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2005) 1 SCC 88
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider the
question “will a promise to marry without the intention to marry give rise to
misconception of fact within the meaning of Section 190 of the Indian Penal Code” and
the same was answered by inter alia holding that a representation deliberately
made by the accused which was really a mere hoax, with a view to elicit the
assent of the victim without having the intention or inclination to marry her at
the very inception, will vitiate the consent, ostensibly given by the victim.
3 Cr. M.P. No.2098 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:23913)
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uday vs. State of
Karnataka reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 has inter alia observed that a false
promise is not a fact within the meaning of Indian Penal Code but there is no
straitjacket formula in this regard. The evidence in each case in the surrounding
circumstances have to be carefully considered before reaching a conclusion.
8. It is also pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that
the question of consent of the prosecutrix is really a matter of defence by the
accused and it is for him to place the materials from which the court can come
to a conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party as has been held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of H.P. vs. Shree Kant
Shekari reported in (2004) 8 SCC 153: AIR 2004 SC 4404.
9. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 313 of the Indian Penal
Code is concerned, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner
that the prosecutrix was pregnant and the petitioner caused the miscarriage of
the prosecutrix. The petitioner did it voluntarily. The miscarriage was not
caused in good faith for saving the life of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix
did not consent to the miscarriage. So, these evidence are sufficient to constitute
the offence punishable under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code besides
there are other allegations also against the petitioner.
10. Keeping in view the facts of the case and as the cognizance of the offence
has already been taken but the consideration of charge is yet to take place, in
view of the nature of the allegation, this Court is of the considered view that
this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in the
instant Cr.M.P., be allowed rather it is left open for the trial court to consider
4 Cr. M.P. No.2098 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:23913)
the materials at the time of considering the framing of charge and if necessary
at subsequent stage also.
11. Hence, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 18th of August, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
5 Cr. M.P. No.2098 of 2025