Chatra v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 3368 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3368 of 2023 Jay Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar, aged about 27 years, son of Galo Mahto, resident of Village- Soki, P.O. & P.S.- Mayurhant, Dist.- Chatra ........Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar , Adv. : Ms. Ruby Pandey, Addl. PP P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
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 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order dated 21.09.2023 passed by JMFC, Hazaribagh in connection with G.R. No. 1880 of 2023, arising out of Ichak P.S. Case no. 215 of 2022 whereby and where under, learned JMFC, Hazaribagh found prima facie case against the petitioner for proceeding under Section 366, 376, 341, 323, 504, 34 of the IPC and took cognizance of the said offence. 3. The brief facts of the case, is that the informant started conversation with the petitioner over a social media where the petitioner portrayed himself as Constable in BSF and the acquaintance developed between the informant and the petitioner over phone and the petitioner intimated the informant, that he likes her and he will marry her. On 10.08.2022, the petitioner came to the house of the informant and taking advantage of the fact, that no one else was there in the house of the informant, the petitioner established physical relationship 2 Cr.M.P. No. 3368 of 2023 with her by telling that he will marry her. The petitioner again came in the month of the August and established physical relationship with the informant. On 13th November, the petitioner took the informant to Ranchi and kept her in a hotel and established physical relationship with the informant several times, in the night and dropped the informant in her village on 14th November. It is further alleged that on being told by the informant to marry her, the petitioner introduced the informant to his mother, father and other family members. On 6th December, leaving the informant in his house, the petitioner, went to his duty place with the promise to marry her after return. On 07.12.2022, the family members of the petitioner, severely assaulted the informant and drove her out, from their house by telling her that they will not get the petitioner married with the informant because they will get Tilak of Rs. 20,00,000/- and they will arrange the marriage of the petitioner elsewhere and if the informant can bring Rs. 20,00,000/-, then only they will get her married with the petitioner and when the informant told the petitioner about the demand of Rs. 20,00,000/-, the petitioner also told the informant to arrange Rs. 20,00,000/- for marriage and thereafter, switched off his phone. The informant somehow, came back to her village. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this court, in the case of Rabindra Mahto @ Rabinder Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. passed in Cr. Revision no. 355 of 2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The state of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608, para 18 of which reads as under:- “18. 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 3 Cr.M.P. No. 3368 of 2023 false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.” and submits that in order to constitute a consent of a woman to be vitiated by “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, 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. It is next submitted that in this case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had no intention to marry the informant at any point of time, rather it is the admitted case of the informant that the petitioner, in order to marry her, brought her to his house and kept her in his house but his family members, did not agree for the marriage between the petitioner and the informant. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the admittedly, the victim is a major girl and only to realize the dream of marrying the petitioner, and to pressurize the petitioner, instituted a false case against the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner, also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of Mandar Deepak Pawar vs, The State of Maharastra & anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649, wherein the facts of that case, where the parties to that case, were in consensual relationship from 2009 to 2011 , the Hon’ble Supreme court of India, took note of the view taken by it in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The state of Maharashtra (supra) and also took note of the distinction that was made between a false promise of marriage which was given on the understanding by the maker that it will be broken and the breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including order dated 21.09.2023 passed by JMFC, Hazaribag in connection with G.R. No. 1880 of 2023, arising out of Ichak P.S. Case no. 215 of 2022 be quashed and set aside. 4 Cr.M.P. No. 3368 of 2023 7. Learned Addl PP , on the other hand, vehemently, opposes the prayer of quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order dated 21.09.2023 passed by JMFC, Hazaribag in connection with G.R. Case No. 1880 of 2023, arising out of Ichak P.S. Case no. 215 of 2022 and submits that the allegation made against the petitioner is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC as it is a clear case that the consent of the informant, has been vitiated by the misconception of fact arising out of promise to marriage, hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no allegations against the petitioner that he had no intention to marry the informant rather the allegations goes to show that the petitioner was willing to marry the informant and even took her to his house but the family members of the petitioner became impediment and obstructed the petitioner from honoring his words of marrying the informant. The physical relationship between the parties, continued for a considerable period of time. 9. Under such circumstances, in view of the principle of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The state of Maharashtra (supra), it cannot be said that the consent of the informant was vitiated by misconception of the fact as the informant being a major lady, has established consensual sexual relationship with the petitioner. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, the 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 including order dated 21.09.2023 passed by JMFC, Hazaribag in connection with G.R. No. 1880 of 2023, arising out of Ichak P.S. Case no. 215 of 2022 be quashed and set aside. 5 Cr.M.P. No. 3368 of 2023 10. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by JMFC, Hazaribag in connection with G.R. Case No. 1880 of 2023, arising out of Ichak P.S. Case no. 215 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. 11. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 12th February, 2024 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)