SAHDEV SINGH ALIAS SAHDEO SINGH vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
( 2026:JHHC:12842 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3697 of 2025
------
Sahdev Singh @ Sahdeo Singh, aged about 32 years, son of Sunder
Singh, Resident of Village-Beratulunda, P.O.-Dumrita, P.S.-
Anandpur, Singhbhum, District-West at present Police Sub-Inspector
posted at S.I. Potka, P.O. & P.S.-Potka, District-East Singhbhum
Jamshedpur.
… Petitioner
Versus
…
The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
------
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
I.A. No.5892 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 . )
1
Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025
( 2026:JHHC:12842 )
I.A. No.5893 of 2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed with a prayer to amend the Cr.M.P. No. 3697 of
2025 by making additional prayer for quashing the order dated
15.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in
Sessions Trial No.153 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti has framed charges against the
petitioner, in para-1 and prayer portion of this Cr.M.P. It is next
submitted that the proposed amendment was necessitated because of the
developments which took place after filing of this criminal miscellaneous
petition. It is next submitted that the proposed amendment will not
change the nature and character of this Cr.M.P. It is lastly submitted that
unless the proposed amendment is allowed, the petitioner will be highly
prejudiced.
Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer for amendment made in
this interlocutory application is allowed.
This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.
Learned counsel for the petitioner files a consolidated criminal
miscellaneous petition, keep the same in the record.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Cr.M.P. No.3697 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 entire criminal proceeding including the
order dated 09.09.2025 passed in Khunti Mahila P.S. Case no.09 of 2025
corresponding to G.R. Case No.460 of 2025 (S.T. Case No.153 of 2025) by
2
Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025
( 2026:JHHC:12842 )
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti whereby and where under
cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, as well as the order
dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Khunti in Sessions Trial No.153 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the
court below has framed charges against the petitioner.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the
brother in law (Devar) of the elder sister of the informant and trapped the
informant taking advantage of the fact that the husband of the informant
was in jail in connection with a murder case and brushing aside the
protest of the informant, the petitioner used to go to the house of the
informant and was residing there in the night also. The petitioner
established physical relationship with the informant several times by
promising to marry her and advised the informant to dissolve her
marriage with her husband Nitranjan Singh. The informant became
pregnant because of her physical relationship with the petitioner and gave
birth to a child on 04.09.2021. In the case for dissolution of her marriage
with her husband vide MTS Case No.24 of 2021 at the instance of the
petitioner, the informant deposed in her examination in chief that she is
not having any relationship with anyone and she has no children and it
was also mentioned therein that it is false to say that the informant has
given birth to a child because of its illicit relationship with the petitioner.
There is further allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner used to
live with the informant as husband and wife and was establishing
physical relationship by saying that the moment, the marriage of the
3
Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025
( 2026:JHHC:12842 )
informant with her husband Nitranjan Singh would dissolve, the
petitioner will marry her. The M.T.S. Case No.24 of 2021 was to be
withdrawn because of some procedural legal error and fresh Matrimonial
Case No.09 of 2025 was instituted but after receiving the said information,
the petitioner refused to marry the informant.
4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant,
police registered Khunti Mahila P.S. Case No.09 of 2025 and took up
investigation of the case, after completion of investigation, police
submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and on the basis of the
charge sheet, the learned Court took cognizance of the offences and after
commitment of case to the Court of Sessions, charge has also been framed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far, no witness
has been examined during the trial.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgement
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnish Singh @
Soni vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in [2025] 3 S.C.R. 303 : 2025
INSC 308 and submits that in para-25, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has observed that prolonged period of 16 years during which the
sexual relations continued unabatedly between the parties, is sufficient to
conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the
relationship.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that, in that case,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgement in the
Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra 2024
case of reported in
4
Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025
( 2026:JHHC:12842 )
SCC OnLine SC 3471 wherein it was reiterated that in a situation where
the woman knowingly maintains the physical relationship for a
prolonged period, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical
relationship was purely because of alleged promise made by the accused
to marry her.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, in that case, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgement in the
case of Prashant vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3375 , wherein it was observed that it is inconceivable that the
complainant would continue to meet the accused or maintain a prolonged
association or physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary
consent on her part.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in that case,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgement in the
case of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675
and submits that in para-24 of which it was observed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India that there must be adequate evidence to show
that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the accused had no
intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim and in
the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed and set
aside the order passed by the High Court, hence, the prayer as prayed for
by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
10. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant
5
Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025
( 2026:JHHC:12842 )
Cr.M.P and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the
petitioner of forcibly establishing physical relationship with the informant
and the same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under
Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is submitted that
this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
11. 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 the undisputed facts remains that the FIR
was instituted more than 4 years after the informant give birth to her son,
the paternity of him is attributed to the petitioner by the informant. There
is also allegation that prior to the birth of the son of the informant, the
petitioner was continuously having sexual relationship with the
informant, so it is apparent that if the averments made in the FIR are
considered to be true in their entirety, then the petitioner was having
physical relationship continuously with the informant for a period of at
least more than 5 years.
12. In view of the principle of law reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Rajnish Singh @ Soni vs. State of U.P. and
Court of India in the case of
Another (supra) , this Court has no hesitation in holding that in the
absence of any material to suggest that at the time of making the promise
by the petitioner to marry the informant, the petitioner had no intention
to marry her and in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation
in holding that even if the allegations against the petitioner are considered
6
Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025
( 2026:JHHC:12842 )
to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section
376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code is not made out.
13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against
ingredient of that offence against the petitioner, therefore, as none of the
offences in respect of which charge sheet has been submitted is made out
against the petitioner, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the
continuation of this 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 the order dated 09.09.2025 passed in
Khunti Mahila P.S. Case no.09 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.460
of 2025 (S.T. Case No.153 of 2025) by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Khunti whereby and where under cognizance has been taken against the
petitioner as well as the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.153 of 2025
whereby and whereunder the court below has framed charges against the
petitioner, be quashed and set aside.
14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 09.09.2025 passed in Khunti Mahila P.S. Case no.09 of 2025
corresponding to G.R. Case No.460 of 2025 (S.T. Case No.153 of 2025) by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti whereby and where under the
cognizance has been taken against the petitioner as well as the order
dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Khunti in Sessions Trial No.153 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the
7
Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025
( 2026:JHHC:12842 )
court below has framed charges against the petitioner, is quashed and set
aside qua the petitioner only.
15. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 30 of April, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 06/05/2026
8
Cr. M.P. No.3697 of 2025