1 - Prem Netam S/o Kashiram Netam Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Pirda v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6231-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 444 of 2025 1 - Prem Netam S/o Kashiram Netam Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Pirda, Police Station- Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04-02-2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “i. May this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the Petitioner. ii. May this Hon’ble Court be king enough to quash the F.I.R. bearing Crime No.478/2024 dated 26-09-2024 and entire Charge-sheet bearing No. 363/2024 prepared on 23-11- 2024 (Annexure P-1) registered against the Petitioner under Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 Section 69 of the Bhartitya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. iii. May this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to grant Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the case, as mentioned in the petition, in brief, are that the petitioner and the victim/complainant met through social media and exchanged their mobile numbers, and had been in communication since 2023. On 17-03-2024, the petitioner allegedly committed sexual intercourse with her at a hotel in Village Rajim under the pretext of marriage. Thereafter, he committed sexual intercourse with the victim on multiple occasions at different locations. Based on her complaint Police Station Mahasamund Registered Crime No.478/2024 against the petitioner under Section 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Court 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after registration of the FIR the petitioner had moved application under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 23-10-2024. The petitioner is a married man and he is having two issues and he is a Government servant. The victim has made false allegation against the petitioner, therefore, he was unable to do his duty where he was posted as a Constable and due to unauthorized absence, he has been suspended and also departmental enquiry has been initiated by the police department. There is no sufficient material against the petitioner 3 which may constitute offence under Section 96 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The delay in lodging report has not been explained by the victim/complainant. The complainant had knowledge that the petitioner was already married, therefore, there is no suppression of identity by the petitioner. The complainant willingly continued to meet with the petitioner and even stayed at his house after learning about his marital status. Further, it appears that the denial of petitioner for marriage with the complainant caused her to lodge the report against him. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the petitioner made sexual intercourse with the victim many times on the pretext of marriage. The reason of delay has been mentioned in the FIR that after consulting family members the complainant has lodged the report. Further, there is sufficient material available in the charge sheet against the petitioner. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 5. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :-
Decision
“23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the 4 criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 5 6. There is allegations against the petitioner that petitioner established physical relation with the complainant/victim on the pretext of marriage which continued for about six months, whereas, the petitioner was already a married person. Further, considering the fact that the prosecution should not be thrown at the initial stage and the allegations made against the petitioner are subject to evidence before the trial Court and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited above, we do not find any good ground to interfere in matter. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil