Raipur Chhattisgarh v. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:20839-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1567 of 2025 Pravin Sahu S/o Rajesh Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Dulana, P.S. Gobra Navapara, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.05.07 16:55:03 +0530 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Tikrapara, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - XYZ ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
framed against the petitioner on 10.01.2025 and prima facie we find that there appears to be no error or infirmity in the order framing charge by the trial Court. 6 9. As such, looking to the heinous nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, we not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter as the impugned charge-sheet, discloses cognizable offence on the part of the petitioner. Hence, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end. 10. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet
Arguments
: Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No.1 / State. 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, and in exercise thereof call for the records, if necessary, admit the petition and after hearing parties in the matter quash the F.I.R dated 01.11.2023 registered at Police Station- Tikrapara, District- Raipur, (C.G) bearing crime no. 574/2023, Charge Sheet dated 12.01.2024 bearing chargesheet no. 48/2023 for offence punishable under Section 376, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(V- a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cognizance order (first order sheet) dated 15.02.2024 in Special S.T. No. 05/2024 and order of charge dated 10.01.2025 (ANNEXURE P-1) which is pending before Special Judge Atrocities Raipur (C.G), and all consequent proceedings (if any) incidental & accidental thereto& orders prejudicial to the petitioner herein and/or pass such other orders in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem it fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts of the case in a nutshell is that the petitioner and the prosecutrix work at a same workplace namely City Honda. The prosecutrix filed a written letter dated 18.01.2023, pursuant to which the instant F.I.R. has been registered stating that she has been subjected to continuous physical exploitation by petitioner herein. From 02.04.2023 to 20.10.2023 under the false pretext of marriage, despite being aware of his marital status and after his separation from his wife, the petitioner deceitfully established physical relations by emotionally manipulating the prosecutrix/respondent No.3. Repeatedly professing love and threatening self-harm, despite several efforts by the 3 prosecutrix/respondent No.3 to resist and even informing his wife, the petitioner continued his coercive conduct. Upon perusal of the complaint, cognizable offences were found to be made out, and FIR has been duly registered. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application under 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of anticipatory bail before this Hon'ble court which has been dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2024. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.04.2024 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.5619/2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner is initiated with the oblique motive to drag the petitioner into a false criminal case. The allegations made in the charge-sheet together with the material collected during investigation, even if taken as It is i.e. on their face value, do not prima-facie constitute any offence against the petitioner under provisions of Indian Penal Code and provisions of Atrocities Act have been made. Even for the sake of assumption it is assumed that there was a relationship between the victim and the petitioner, the same was between two adults, capable of knowing the circumstances & outcome of their act, as such, consensual in nature. The registration of criminal case by any agency whosoever i.e. police or the court, is a serious act and when on the face of the record no offence is made out against the petitioner then the 4 registration/continuance of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court and the process of law. Even in the medical examination of the prosecutrix/Respondent No.3, no injury is pointed out. It is settled in law that an individual, who makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating various alternative actions as well as the various possible consequences flowing from such action or inaction, consents to such action. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608, Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191, Soni alis Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 1405 = 2021 SCC Online SC 181 and in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335. 5. Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet and submits that in the present matter, since the charge-sheet has already been filed and charges have already been framed against the petitioner on 10.01.2025, as such, this petition has virtually become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. 6. Learned State Counsel further argued that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet goes to show that the petitioner and the complainant 5 work at the same place and the petitioner on the pretext of marriage, has continuously physically exploited the complainant and established physical relations with the her by emotionally manipulating her, though the petitioner himself is a married man, due to which, the complainant became pregnant. When she told the petitioner about her pregnancy, the petitioner unknowingly fed abortion pills to the complainant due to which, her health deteriorated. The complainant even informed petitioner’s wife about the coercive acts of the petitioner, but still the petitioner kept on forcibly having physical relations with the complainant. Hence looking to the heinous nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet goes to show that the petitioner though being a married man himself, on the pretext of marriage, physically exploited the complainant due to which, she became pregnant and when the petitioner got to know about the pregnancy of the complainant, he fed her abortion pills and got her aborted unknowingly due to which her health deteriorated and even after that, the petitioner kept on forcibly having physical relations with the complainant. Further, the charges have already been