Jan Ranjan Sinha @ Jan Ranjan @ PO Jan Ranjan Sinha S/o Sambhu Nath v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anita Devi W/o Rajkumar, residents of H. No.127
Case Details
Cr. M.P. No.1020 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1020 of 2023 ------ Jan Ranjan Sinha @ Jan Ranjan @ PO Jan Ranjan Sinha S/o Sambhu Nath Sinha, aged about 39 Years, residents of Sankosai Road No.1, Dimna Road, Mango, P.O. & P.S.- Mango, District- East Singhbum at Jamshedpur … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anita Devi W/o Rajkumar, residents of H. No.127, Old Subhash Nagar Colony, Dimna Road Mango, P.O. & P.S.- Mango, District- Opposite Parties East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur … For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 ------
Legal Reasoning
of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Lal Mahli @ Bhagwan Lal Mahali vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another dated 18th of December, 2023 passed in Cr.M.P. No.588 of 2021 wherein this Court in the facts of that case; where the victim did not say anything to suggest that the accused of that case established physical relationship with her against her will or without her consent nor was there any allegation that the consent for physical relationship of the informant/victim was obtained by making any false promise of marriage or that the accused did not have the intention to marry the informant since the beginning nor there was any allegation that the consent of the informant of that case was obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or hurt nor was there any allegation that the victim was less than 18 years of age, in the facts of that case, this Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings. 3 Cr. M.P. No.1020 of 2023 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of S. Rajadurai vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5919 wherein in the facts of that case when the accused of the case promised to marry the victim and on false promise of marriage he had developed physical relationship with her forcibly and one month thereafter the parties got prepared an affidavit in the name and style of agreement for ‘live-in-relationship’ in which the accused mentioned himself to be a bachelor but later on the victim came to know that the accused was already married and he had concealed this fact from her and thereafter the accused promised the victim by way of an affidavit that he will divorce his wife within six months and thereafter both of them continued their relationship but later on the accused intentionally caught hold of the victim and broke her phone and made physical relationship with her forcibly on the pretext that he will marry her soon and the victim became pregnant but thereafter the accused stopped attending the phone calls of the victim which led to filing of the complaint, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the facts of that case, quashed the F.I.R. of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Yadav @ Deepak Kr. Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand & Another dated 28th of November, 2023 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No.688 of 2023 wherein in the facts of that case when the petitioner married the informant of the case by putting vermillion and stayed together with the victim and during those period used to sexually exploit the victim, this Court keeping in view of the consensual sexual relationship and in the absence of any allegation of any false promise for marriage on the part of the male partner 4 Cr. M.P. No.1020 of 2023 engaged in sexual relationship, in the facts of that case, quashed the order taking cognizance. Therefore, it is submitted that no offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R. in connection with M.G.M. (Mango) P.S. Case No.28 of 2023, the charge-sheet No.92 of 2023 dated 30.06.2023 and also the order taking cognizance dated 08.08.2023 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance against the petitioner which is now pending in the court of C.J.S.D-VI (J.M)., Jamshedpur, be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned P.P. and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner to quash and set aside the F.I.R. in connection with M.G.M. (Mango) P.S. Case No.28 of 2023, the charge-sheet No.92 of 2023 dated 30.06.2023 and also the order taking cognizance dated 08.08.2023 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance against the petitioner. Learned P.P. and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submit that the facts of the cases cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are entirely different from the facts of this case as this is not a case of consensual sexual relationship rather it is the specific case of the informant/victim that her consent for physical relationship was obtained under duress by extending threat of hurt to the minor son of the informant/victim who was undisputedly in custody in the Remand Home and petitioner in capacity of a Probation Officer, was in a position to cause harm the minor son of the victim inside the Remand Home taking advantage of his position and the petitioner threatened to do the same and thereafter by administering sedative materials to the informant/victim, the offence was 5 Cr. M.P. No.1020 of 2023 committed. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that it cannot be said that the informant/victim has consented for physical relationship when it is the categorical case of the informant as is evident from statements made both in the F.I.R. as well as explicitly described in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that the petitioner ravished her against her will by taking advantage of her son being in his custody and threatening that unless she submits to his lust he will cause hurt to his son. Hence, 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, this Court finds that the facts of the cases the judgments of which were relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, are entirely different from the facts of this case. This is a case where there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner by taking advantage of his position as a Probation Officer and thus, in a position to cause hurt to the minor son of the informant/victim- lady, after administering her drugs and when the victim was not in a fit state of mind, forcibly committed rape upon her against her will on several occasion. 10. It is a settled principle of law that the veracity of the allegations made by the complainant cannot be tested in exercise of the power vested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same can only be done by a full dress trial. If the allegations made in the F.I.R., the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and other materials collected by the police during the investigation of the case including the medical examination report of the victim are taken to be true in its entirety, certainly, prime facie the offence punishable 6 Cr. M.P. No.1020 of 2023 under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, named above. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the F.I.R. in connection with M.G.M. (Mango) P.S. Case No.28 of 2023, the charge-sheet No.92 of 2023 dated 30.06.2023 and also the order taking cognizance dated 08.08.2023 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th of February, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 7
Arguments
: Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. : Mr. D. K. Karmakar, Advocate Mr. P. S. Dayal, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. in connection with M.G.M. (Mango) P.S. Case No.28 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and for quashing the charge-sheet No.92 of 2023 dated 30.06.2023 and also for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 08.08.2023 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian 1 Cr. M.P. No.1020 of 2023 Penal Code and the said case is now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the minor son of the informant was in the Remand Home of Jamshedpur consequent upon a police case against him. The petitioner used to be the Probation Officer attached to the said Remand Home. The informant used to visit the Remand Home to meet her son and during that she came across the petitioner. The petitioner taking advantage of the vulnerable position of the informant who was eager to ensure that no untoward occurrence takes place with her son; who was in custody in the Remand Home, made obscene chats with the informant and against her wish by sedating her by making her drink cold drinks with sedatives, committed rape upon her against her will several times and also solemnized marriage in a temple with the informant to legalize his illegal activities; though both the petitioner and informant were having subsisting marriages respectively and were not eligible for a valid Hindu Marriage. During all these occurrence, the minor son of the informant was in custody of the Remand Home. Police after investigation of the case, considering the materials available in the record including the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein the victim has corroborated the prosecution case, found the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Jamshedpur considering the materials available in the record, took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to issue summons. 2 Cr. M.P. No.1020 of 2023 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is next submitted that since the informant admits that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner, hence, no offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 and submits that if there is no allegation that when the accused promised to marry the complainant, the accused did the same in bad faith or with the intention to deceive the victim, the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment