ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

( 2026:JHHC:26356 )


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3425 of 2025
------
Abhishek Kumar Singh, aged about 24 years, S/o Binod Kumar
Singh, R/o Qtr. No.MK1-131, Monohartand, P.O. & P.S.-Sindri,
District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
… Petitioner
Versus
…
The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party

------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate
: Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate
: Mr. V.K. Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Addl.P.P.
------
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

I.A. No.12309 of 2026
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of the instant
Cr.M.P.
Since, the hearing of instant Cr.M.P. is taken up today, hence, this
interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

Cr.M.P. No.3425 of 2025
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 BNSS, 2023 with the
prayer to quash and set aside the FIR including the entire criminal
1
Cr. M.P. No.3425 of 2025

( 2026:JHHC:26356 )


proceeding in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No.92 of 2024
corresponding to G.R. Case No.1206 of 2025 and to quash the charge sheet
as well as the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by learned Judicial
st
Magistrate-1 Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned
st
Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the
offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner obtained
the consent of the informant by adopting fraudulent means by making a
false promise of marriage to her and sexually exploited her and made a
dowry demand of Rs.10 lakhs as a condition for marrying her. The mother
of the informant gave by sending Rs.1 lakh through bank account transfer
to the account of the petitioner and separately Rs.75,000/- was also given
to the petitioner by the mother of the informant besides Rs.21,000/- for
gold chain, but because of non-fulfillment of dowry demand of Rs.10
lakhs, the petitioner did not marry the informant.
4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant,
police registered Sindri P.S. Case No.92 of 2024 and took up investigation
of the case and after completion of investigation, police found the
allegation against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet
against the petitioner and basing upon the same, the learned Judicial
st
Magistrate-1 Class, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences as
already indicated above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this
Deepak Toppo vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Court in the case of
2
Cr. M.P. No.3425 of 2025

( 2026:JHHC:26356 )


Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.2240 of 2021 dated 19.06.2024 , wherein in
para-09, in the facts of that case, as undisputedly, the age of the informant
of that case was 25 years on the date of alleged physical relationship. It
was considered in the facts of that case where there was allegation that on
two different dates, the accused of that case established physical
relationship with victim, but there was no averment in the FIR that either
of the two physical relationships on two separate dates were made
forcibly or with promise to marry the victim, this Court quashed the
entire criminal proceeding.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Matiyas Sanga vs. The State of Jharkhand
2025:JHHC:26802
reported in and submits that in that case, this Court
relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Sonu @ Subash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
reported in (2021) 18 SCC 517 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India keeping in view the facts of the case where the relationship between
the accused and the victim was consensual in nature, the parties were in
relationship for a period of one and a half years and subsequently the
accused persons expressed disinclination to marry the victim, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India quashed the entire criminal proceeding.

7. It is then submitted that in that case, this Court also considered the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maheshwar
Tigga vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 108 , wherein
it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts of that case
that misconception of fact has to be in proximity of time to the occurrence
3
Cr. M.P. No.3425 of 2025

( 2026:JHHC:26356 )


and cannot be spread over a period of four years. It is submitted that as in
this case the physical relationship continued for a considerable period of
time, so it cannot be said that this is a case of misconception of facts,
hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner
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 undisputed facts remains that the offence
punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out if
the allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true, as
there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the
petitioner demanded Rs.10 lakhs as a condition for marriage with the
victim. It is next submitted that if the allegations made against the
petitioner are considered to be true, this is also a case where the petitioner
obtained the consent of the victim of sexual relationship, on making a
false promise of marriage; as since the beginning, the petitioner was not
having any intention to marry the victim and in order to wriggle out of
the relationship between him and the victim has used the ploy of an
exorbitant dowry demand of Rs.10 lakhs, hence, it is submitted that the
offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is also
made out. It is then submitted that though charge sheet has been
submitted against the petitioner and the petitioner is absconding and the
petitioner himself has submitted in court that the case is next fixed on
20.11.2026 for appearance of the sole accused person of the case.
4
Cr. M.P. No.3425 of 2025

( 2026:JHHC:26356 )


Therefore, 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, it is
pertinent to mention here that even if the entire allegations against the
petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, no doubt, the offence
punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out as
there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of demanding
dowry of Rs.10 lakhs. Further, there is allegation against the petitioner
that the petitioner obtained the consent of the victim for sexual
relationship on the false promise of marriage and charge sheet has already
been submitted against the petitioner after finding the allegations against
him to be true and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offences based on the charge sheet submitted by the police.
10. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish
Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659 , paragraph-15 of
which reads as under:-
“15. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the
complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from
seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in
their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which
offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts
disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the
negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer
prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which
constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any
reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into
the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had
been conducted. But then a further question arises as to
whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the
5
Cr. M.P. No.3425 of 2025

( 2026:JHHC:26356 )


Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking
cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already
stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police
report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking
cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court
only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218
or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means
that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the
prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the
stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state
of facts the appropriate sections which according to the
prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed.
Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage
to submit whether the charge under a particular provision
should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a
case based on police report to determine whether the charge
can be framed and a particular section can be added or
removed depending upon the material collected during
investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the
charge-sheet.” (Emphasis supplied)

That the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report
cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance; as the
same would be permissible for the trial court only at the time of framing
of charge. In this case, so far the Court could not consider the charge as
the petitioner is avoiding appearance in the court concerned and is
absconding.

11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding be quashed at
this nascent stage.
12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
st
Dated the 01 of September, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj

Uploaded on 02/09/2026

6
Cr. M.P. No.3425 of 2025