Dismissed¶43

Waris Hussain v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jun 2026Cr.Rev./1302/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Waris Hussain; discharge application Section 227 Cr.P.C.; Section 376 IPC rape; framing of charge; Hazaribag (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 492 of 2017; S.T. No. 307 of 2018; Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-FTC Rape Cases Hazaribag; second rejection of discharge after remand; Criminal Revision No. 751 of 2021 order dated 13.04.2023; quashing petition (Misc. Petition No. 3066 of 2018) withdrawn; revision dismissed; Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

What did the court decide?

The grounds urged for discharge (relationship between the parties, delay/improbability of the alleged occurrence, live-in relationship) are matters requiring evidence to be adduced during trial and cannot be resolved at the stage of framing charge; materials collected during investigation suffice to frame the charge. ¶39

Waris Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was correctly rejected, i.e., whether the materials collected during investigation furnish sufficient grounds to frame charge against him under Section 376 I.P.C.

¶39

Court's answer

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial court considered the overall materials available against the accused and satisfied itself that an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. was constituted and there were sufficient grounds for framing the charge; the impugned rejection of the discharge application therefore suffers from no illegality or infirmity.

¶39

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any substantial material conclusively establishing his innocence at the present stage of the proceeding.ratio¶40
Finding no substance in the petitioner's arguments and no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the criminal revision.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision – Discharge under S.227 Cr.P.C. – Framing of charge under S.376 IPC – Jharkhand HC (Srivastava, J.) dismisses Cr. Revision No. 1302 of 2003 (Waris Hussain v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.) directed against the order dated 19.07.2023 of the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-FTC for Rape Cases, Hazaribag in S.T. No. 307 of 2018 (Hazaribag Sadar P.S. Case No. 492 of 2017) rejecting the petitioner's second discharge application (Misc. Criminal Application No. 875 of 2018) after remand by order dated 13.04.2023 in Criminal Revision No. 751 of 2021. Holds: grounds urged for discharge (informant being petitioner's relative 'fufi', Khula/marriage timeline, 12-year delay, decade-long relationship) require evidence at trial; at the charge-framing stage the investigation materials suffice; the trial court had satisfied itself that a S.376 IPC offence was constituted with sufficient grounds to frame charge; petitioner pointed to no substantial material establishing innocence; no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order; revision dismissed.

¶1

2026:JHHC:16761

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1302 of 2003

¶3

------

¶4

Waris Hussain, aged about 41 years, son of Md. Sabir Hussain, resident of Jama Masjid Road, P.O. & P.S. – Sadar, District – Hazaribag, Jharkhand.

¶5

.... …. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Xxx (Informant) …. .... Opp. Parties

¶9

------

¶10

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Ms. Tanisqa, Advocate. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : None.

¶13

------

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

CAV On Dated- 11.05.2026 Pronounced On 10.06.2026

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. Though Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 / informant, but no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 / informant.

¶17

2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-FTC for Rape Cases, Hazaribag in S.T. No. 307 of 2018 arising out of Hazaribag (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 492 of 2017 registered for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C., whereby the learned trial court has rejected the Misc. Criminal Application No. 875 of 2018

¶18

¶19

2026:JHHC:16761

¶20

filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of the petitioner.

¶21

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that victim lady was married in the year 2001 with Md. Jawed. It is alleged that after one week of marriage, she came to her matrimonial home. On 05.05.2001, in the night, all the family members had gone outside and she was alone in the house. In the meantime, at about 9:00 P.M. her relative Waris Hussain (present petitioner) came to her house and finding her alone committed rape on her. It is alleged that when informant started weeping and attempted to commit suicide then the accused caught hold of her and said that he loves her and will solemnize Nikah with her but she should take Khula from her husband. The prosecutrix relied upon the above promise, took divorce in the form of Khula on 13.05.2001 from her husband Md. Jawed. Thereafter, the present petitioner in one pretext or other delayed the performance of Nikah with her and continuously committed sexual exploitation. It is further alleged that on 24.05.2017, the informant came to know that Waris Hasan is going to perform Nikah with another lady. He also stopped talking with the informant. When she made phone call, then the accused showed his inability to

¶22

¶23

2026:JHHC:16761

¶24

solemnize marriage with her. It is alleged that the accused has spoiled her life causing her severe mental depression.

¶25

4. On the basis of above written report of informant, FIR being Hazaribag (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 492 of 2017 was registered for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. on 09.07.2017. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused for the aforesaid offence.

¶26

5. The case was committed to the court of Sessions and thereafter the same was transferred to the Spl. F.T.C. for Rape Cases, Hazaribag. The petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. dated 05.10.2018 for discharge from this case and the learned trial court after hearing prosecution and the accused has passed the impugned order rejecting the application, which has been assailed in this revision.

¶27

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on earlier occasion also vide order dated 04.12.2021, the discharge application of the petitioner was rejected and he filed a Criminal Revision No. 751 of 2021 before the Hon’ble High Court, which was allowed vide order dated 13.04.2023, whereby and whereunder the case was remitted back to the learned trial court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after giving reasonable

¶28

¶29

2026:JHHC:16761

¶30

opportunity of hearing to both side. It is further submitted that a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3066 of 2018 was also filed for quashing the proceeding against the petitioner, which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.11.2019. It is argued that the learned trial court without appreciating the letter and spirit of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 13.04.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 751 of 2021, in a very causal and mechanical manner again rejected the discharge petition of the petitioner on the same ground, which was earlier taken into consideration. The learned trial court has absolutely failed to properly consider the entire factual matrix of the case that the informant is related as “Fufi” of the petitioner and she was already married woman aged about 30-35 years. Therefore, it was quite impossible that the petitioner would take chance of committing such a ghastly offence with her. The version that for the first time rape was committed on 05.05.2001 and she took Khula is also not true, rather the Khula was taken in the year 2003. The petitioner got quite surprised, when after 12 years of the alleged occurrence this false FIR was lodged on absurd allegations. The learned trial court has also failed to properly appreciate the observations made by Hon’ble High

¶31

¶32

2026:JHHC:16761

¶33

Court while allowing the earlier Criminal Revision No. 751 of 2021 and remitting back the case for re-hearing. The learned trial court simply on the ground that at this stage no argument of defence plea can be taken into consideration has committed serious error of law in rejecting the discharge petition. Even if the version contained in FIR may be assumed to be correct, no offence of rape is constituted against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set aside and this revision may be allowed.

¶34

7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the learned trial court has taken into consideration the overall materials and passed a reasoned order, which suffers from no illegality or infirmity calling for any interference. This revision is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.

¶35

8. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side.

¶36

9. It appears that most of the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner relates to emotional touch and improbability of the alleged offence due to respectful relation as “fufi” in between informant and the present petitioner and after 12 years of alleged initial occurrence of

¶37

¶38

2026:JHHC:16761

¶39

rape and constant live-in relationship about a decade does not constitute the offence of rape. The proposed grounds for discharge taken by the petitioner require evidence to be adduced during trial. It is trite that at the time of framing charge the materials collected during investigation are suffice to frame the charge against the accused. The impugned order goes to show that the learned trial court has taken into consideration overall materials available against the accused and satisfied itself that offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is constituted against the petitioner and there are sufficient grounds for framing the charge against him. It also appears that earlier Misc. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by present petitioner for quashing the criminal case against him was withdrawn by him. It is also apparent that on earlier occasion also the discharge application was rejected by the learned trial court and on certain observation, the Hon’ble High Court in Cr. Revision No. 751 of 2021 set aside the order and remitted back the case for rehearing and to pass a fresh order.

¶40

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any substantial material which conclusively establishes his innocence at the present stage of the proceeding.

¶41

¶42

2026:JHHC:16761

¶43

11. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any substance in the point of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner and no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as well as no merits in this revision, which stand dismissed.

¶44

12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial court for information and needful.

¶45

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶46

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 10/06/2026

¶47

Sunil/-NAFR

¶48

Uploaded on 11/06/2026

¶49