1 - Pramod Kumar Navratna S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Navratna, Aged About 33 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, Distt- Bilaspur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:10237-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 117 of 2025 1 - Pramod Kumar Navratna S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Navratna, Aged About 33 Years R/o H. No. 39/6, Saroj Vihar, P.S. - Sarkanda, Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Station House Officer, P.S.- Sarkanda, Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - ABC ... Respondent For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 7. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about 4 the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. In para 23.1 to 33.15, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:- 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 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 5 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; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; 8. From perusal of the FIR, it is quite vivid that the victim has made allegation against the petitioner that on the pretext of marriage, she was being subjected to sexual intercourse by the petitioner and ultimately, he refused for marriage with her. Whether or not the consent obtained by the petitioner on the misconception of fact or pretext of marriage, are to be question of fact which requires proper investigation. At the initial stage of investigation after 6 registration of FIR, at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegation levelled by the victim is pulpably false and no offence prima facie made out against the petitioner. 9. Considering the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any good ground for interference as it cannot be said that no prima facie offence is disclosed. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.03.10 12:10:56 +0530
Arguments
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board On 03.03.2025 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the FIR (Crime No. 213/2025) registered at P.S. Sarkanda, Dist- Bilaspur for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and the petitioner claimed for the following relief:- “ 10.1 Call for entire records pursuant to crime No. 213/2025 registered at P.S. Sarkanda, Dist- Bilaspur (CG). 2 10.2 Allow the petition and quash the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 213/2025 for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC registered at P.S. Sarkanda, Dist- Bilaspur (CG). 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted also.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.02.2025, the FIR has been registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC on the complaint made by the complainant/ respondent No. 3, it is alleged in the FIR that on 18/09/2022, the petitioner took her to his house and committed rape upon her. When she protested and said that she will lodge the report against his act, then the petitioner allured her that he likes her and he will marry with her. He applied vermilian on her head and thereafter he continued in making physical relation with her up to 30 th January, 2025 on the pretext of marriage. He avoiding for marriage despite repeated request by her, and ultimately refused to marry with her and then she lodged the written report to the Police on which the FIR has been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the victim is a married lady and an Advocate by profession and having knowledge of her well being. In any stretch of imagination, she cannot be duped on pretext of marriage. She developed physical relation with the petitioner which continued up the January, 2025 which itself goes to show that she was consenting party in making physical relation with the petitioner for that no offence of rape is prima facie made out from the contents of the FIR itself. The petitioner himself was the sufferer of the act of the victim as she blackmailing him for which the petitioner made complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 06.02.2025 and therefore, in absence of any prima facie ingredients to constitute the offence of rape, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the same. He would further submit that the petitioner has also applied for grant of 3 anticipatory bail which is being registered as MCRCA No. 285/2025 which is pending for consideration and it is listed today before the Court having roster of the same. In which he is having full hope to get the anticipatory bail. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition may be allowed and the impugned FIR may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that on the complaint made by the victim, the FIR has been registered and there is allegation of rape upon her. Learned counsel for the State/respondent would submit that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition. 6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well- settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if