25548-DB NAFR 1 - Sonu Kumar Yadav S/o. Shri Chhotelal Yadav Aged About 30 v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Thro
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.06.20 10:22:07 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1881 of 2025 2025:CGHC:25548-DB NAFR 1 - Sonu Kumar Yadav S/o. Shri Chhotelal Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o. Jaitpur, P.S. Madhan, Tahsil - Namirana, District - Kotputli (Rajasthan) At Present R/o. C.I.S.F. Unit Lane, N.T.P.C.M.S., T.P.P. Mouda, Nagpur (Maharashtra) 2 - Robin Singh Yadav S/o. Shri Chhotelal Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o. Jaitpur, P.S. Madhan, Tehsil - Namirana, District - Kotputli (Rajasthan) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - SHO, P.S. City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Xyz Nil (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dheerendra Pandey and Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.1- State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Chief Justice Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 19.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey and Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondent No.1. 2 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners with following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the application by making an order to quash the crime no.471/2024 dated 31.07.2024 offence u/s 376(2)n, 506 of IPC & quash the final report dated 27.09.2024 and also quash the entire criminal proceeding pending before Additional Session Judge (FTC) as Session Trial No.67/2024, and Charge Framed by learned trial judge on dated 02.04.2025 offence u/s 376(2)n, 506 of IPC and discharge from the case to the applicant.” 3. Prosecution case. in brief. is that the victim was working at AWPL company. She and present petitioner No.1 came into the contact for AWPL work and product. He told victim that he was unmarried and the conversation continued. Petitioner No.1 told the victim that he liked her as they were planning for meeting at Rajnandgaon on 03.02.2023 and asked to book hotel online. The victim firstly refused to book the hotel, but petitioner No.1 told her that he is in Government job and his mobile is tracked. Then victim had booked Hotel Royal in Rajnandgaon online from 03.02.2023 to 07.02.2023. Both of them were stayed in Hotel Royal pretending to be husband and wife where petitioner No.1 forcefully established physical relationship with the victim. Thereafter, they went other places also the due to the act of petitioner No.1, the 3 victim became pregnant, then he started blackmailing her and forced her to abort the child stating that he would not keep the child and forced her to abort the child. He took the victim from Nagpur to Janjgir-Champa on 12.05.2023 where he called his brother i.e. petitioner No.2-Robin Kumar and kept her. At that releavnt time, the victim knew that the petitioner No.1 was a married man having two children. 4. On 31.07.2024, a false written complaint was lodged against the petitioners at Police Station City Kotwali as per the Complaint police has registered the FIR bearing Crime No.470 of 2024 dated 31.07.2024 for the offence under Sections 376(2)n, 506 of IPC. Before registration of the FIR, respondent No.2 visited the various time in Police Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon, but she did not disclosed the fact of commit rape. She lodged various written complaints from 20.07.2020 to 18.10.2020, but she did not mention any facts for commit rape and herself before lodging the complaint about the rape. On 31.07.2024, the victi has filed a complaint against the petitioners to the City Kotwali Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon alleging therein that the petitioner No.1 had refused to marry the complainant after making physical relations with her long back. 5. On 27.09.2024, after completion of the investigation, Police of Police Station City Kotwali Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon has submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioners for offence under Sections 376(2)n, 506 of IPC before Additional Session Judge (FTC) Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) which has been registered as 4 Sessions Trial No.67/2024, thereafter learned trial Judge has framed the charge against the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are filing this petition, because the prosecutrix lodged the FIR only to harass the petitioners, rather than seeking justice for an offence. The petitioners respectfully states that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. It has been contended that the victim is a major girl and she has voluntarily established physical relationships and became pregnant. It has been further contended that the FIR was an afterthought, without material particulars, out of sheer vengeance vendetta with intention to harass the petitioners as also extorting money from the petitioners. It is respectfully submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that it is filled with material contradictions and falsity of the story as alleged is conspicuous by the absence of any details whatsoever and FIR was filed only as a tool for extortion. 7. It has been submitted that the FIR is silent on basic, material and crucial aspects as to when, where, if at all how any of the alleged incidents took place and apart from grossly bald allegations relating to over as period about two years, which are completely lacking in any particulars, the complaint is a cooked-up story and nothing else. It has been further submitted that the complainant is a well-educated lady and she always appeared before the Police Station City Kotwali, but she did not lodge any complainant about the rape against the petitioners. It has 5 been argued that the victim is consenting party, she had herself left parental house and living together with petitioner No.1. 8. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions and prayer made by the petitioners and submits that in the present matter, charge-sheet has already been filed as well as charges have already been framed against the petitioners. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted. 9. Learned State Counsel further argued that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet discloses that though the victim is a major lady, but the petitioner No.1, who is a married man having two children, on the pretext of marriage, committed forceful sexual intercourse, due to which, she became pregnant. It further revealed that the marriage of the victim was fixed, but the same has been broken by petitioner No.1. Due to sexual relationship, the victim became pregnant and petitioners have forcibly got her abortion. Hence, the above allegation are heinous and serious in nature and the petitioners need to be prosecuted and the matter needs to be brought to its logical end. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the charges have also been framed against the petitioners; further, perusal of the charge-sheet goes to show that the petitioners have committed heinous nature of crime by committing rape with the complainant as a result of 6 which, she became pregnant and the petitioners forcibly got her abortion as well as considering the fact that though the marriage of the victim was fixed, but the petitioner No.1 has broken the marriage of the victim and petitioner No.1 has maintained a relationship with the victim while hiding his married identity, hence, prima facie the charge-sheet itself discloses commission of a monstrous offence, as such, we do not find any good ground for quashing of the charge-sheet in the present case. 12. In that view of the same, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu